¹ú²úAV

2014-UNAT-487

2014-UNAT-487, Ruyooka

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that the Appellant did not succeed in establishing any error of fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the termination of the Appellant’s appointment was firmly supported by the evidence relative to the necessities of service in the context of a downsizing exercise, and no bias or improper purpose vitiated the impugned decision. UNAT held that as the Appellant did not effectively rebut the conclusions of the impugned judgment, he did not satisfy the burden of demonstrating that it was defective such as to warrant its reversal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the Administration’s decision to terminate his appointment. UNDT dismissed the application and noted that Staff Regulation 9.3(a)(i) and Staff Rule 9.6(c)(i) enable the Administration to terminate an appointment if the necessities of service require the abolition of the post or reduction of staff. UNDT was satisfied that the decision to terminate the Applicant’s appointment was motivated by the necessities of service, which required the reduction of the number of staff members in the United Nations Mission in South Sudan and was not tainted by an improper motive. UNDT also rejected the Applicant’s allegation that the Chief of Transport had animus towards him.

Legal Principle(s)

The findings of fact made by UNDT can only be disturbed under Article 2(1)(e) of the UNAT Statute when there has been an error resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision.

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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
Ruyooka
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type