2016-UNAT-659, Liu
UNAT held that UNDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT’s conclusion that the Appellant’s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. UNAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. UNAT dismissed the appeal the affirmed the UNDT judgment.
The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her G-6 fixed-term appointment. UNDT considered the issue of receivability of the application and concluded that the Applicant had met the 60-day time limit to request management evaluation under Staff Rule 11. 2. UNDT found that the reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment was the restructuring of the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs (OOSA Beijing Office), which led to the abolition of the post encumbered by the Applicant. UNDT found that the Applicant did not contest that there were plans to “downgrade” the G-6 position of Programme Associate to the G-4 level to reflect the decreased responsibilities of the position. UNDT found that the evidence established that a position of Team Assistant was advertised and filled through a level 4 Service Contract (SC-4) to replace the G-6 position previously held by the Applicant. UNDT rejected the application.
The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed in the lower court. Rather, he or she must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by UNAT.