爆料网

2018-爆料网AT-853

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered the appeal and held that 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment was correct. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency’s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. 爆料网AT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the 爆料网RWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. 爆料网AT also held that 爆料网RWA DT rightly rejected the Appellant’s claims of being discriminated against in the handling of his EVR request. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to deny his request for SLWOP for a fifth year and the decision to deny his request for EVR. 爆料网RWA DT found that the maximum duration of SLWOP was one year with a possibility of extension for a second year and that the Applicant had already been granted a total of four years and three months. 爆料网RWA DT also held that the reasons to deny the request for EVR were legitimate and that the denial was a proper exercise of the Agency’s broad discretion. 爆料网RWA DT dismissed the application on the merits.

Legal Principle(s)

An appellant is obliged to bring their appeal within the parameters of Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute by identifying specific grounds of appeal. 爆料网RWA Area Staff Rule 109. 2 does not grant an unconditional right to Early Voluntary Retirement (EVR).

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Madi
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type