2015-UNAT-583

2015-UNAT-583, Lee

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

On the Appellant’s claim that UNDT erred in failing to hold an oral hearing, UNAT held that UNDT was in possession of the respective applications and documentation which it considered to be sufficient to make the relevant decisions to facilitate the fair and expeditious disposal of the case. UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that the Appellant did not contest an administrative decision and therefore, there was no legal basis to support the contention that she had a right to be informed of the identity of the decision-makers, noting that she had been informed on several occasions that it was for the General Assembly to decide upon the suggested abolition of her post. UNAT held that there was no merit to the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested inter alia the decisions to abolish her post, to separate her from the Organisation, and not to renew her fixed-term appointment. UNDT dismissed her application.

Legal Principle(s)

UNDT has broad discretion in managing its cases and it is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. In the absence of an error in the procedure adopted by UNDT which may render the hearing of the case unfair, UNAT will not interfere with the discretion of the UNDT to manage its cases.

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Lee

Entity

Case Number(s)

2014-678

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry :

New York

Date of Judgement