2013-UNAT-383, Bofill
On the Appellant’s claims of discriminatory and arbitrary practices, UNAT did not find that UNDT committed any error of law or procedure of any factual error such as to result in a manifestly unreasonable decision and UNDT’s findings demonstrated that it took cognisance of all relevant information. UNAT held that there was no error by UNDT in holding that it was for the High Commissioner to determine the relative importance of the criteria to use for promotion. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact when it determined that the Appellant was afforded proper consideration and in finding that the Appointments, Postings and Promotion Board (APPB) did not recommend her solely on the ground of performance. UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that as the Applicant did not contest her evaluation reports upon which the APPB relied on the date they were prepared, she could not call them into question in the context of this case. On the Appellant’s claim of arbitrariness of the promotions' structure, UNAT found no merit in this ground of appeal. On the Appellant’s allegations of harassment, abuse of authority and retaliatory conduct, UNAT upheld the UNDT’s rejection of her claim that the Secretary-General’s appeal of another judgment was retaliatory. Noting that in her appeal the Appellant reiterated her claims of harassment and abuse of power but refrained from elaborating thereon, UNAT declined to embark on a consideration of her claims. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNDT committed any error of fact or law or error of procedure in arriving at its decision. UNAT held that the appeal had no merit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
The Applicant contested the decision not to promote her. UNDT dismissed her application, concluding that the Applicant’s non-selection was not discriminatory, as her previous work experience had been considered by UNHCR at the time of her initial appointment and her non-promotion was due to her performance evaluation.
It is not sufficient for an appellant to merely disagree with the UNDT’s findings. An appellant must demonstrate that the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision.