2016-UNAT-662, Masylkanova
The UNAT refused the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case”, (Article 18(1) UNAT Rules). UNAT agreed with UNDT that there were “inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself” and that UNAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the UNDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. UNAT found that the Appellant’s claims on appeal were essentially a repetition of her arguments that did not succeed before the UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant’s case was fully and fairly considered by the UNDT and that there was no alleged error that would have changed the outcome of her case. UNAT accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNDT’s judgment.
The Applicant contested the findings of the fact-findings panel and the non-disclosure of the fact-finding report by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). UNDT held that the fact-finding panel’s findings were not an appealable decision. UNDT also held that the Secretary-General did not breach the Applicant’s rights by not sharing with her the full report of the investigation. UNDT awarded compensation “for the inordinate delay in handling her complaint,” but rejected the Applicant’s other requested remedies and pleas.
The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case; rather, an appellant must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by UNAT.