Ãå±±½ûµØ

The applicant submits that the decision not to promote her is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and the provisions of the Staff Rules stipulating that the main factors to be considered with regard to promotions are efficiency, competence and integrity. However, the applicant does not specify in what respects the contested decision violates the said provisions and thus does not enable the judge to rule on these assertions. The principal reason for the refusal to recommend promotion was that the applicant had not been recommended in 2007. While the applicant is contesting that refusal before the Tribunal by arguing that her performance during the same period had been described as superior, it is nevertheless the case that she did not contest the decision to refuse to recommend her, which thus became final. The provisions of section IV of the Procedural Guidelines of the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board stipulate that the Supervisor’s recommendation is one of the most important criteria for the Board to take into account. It is not sufficient for the applicant to submit that the Board did not take into account the many years during which she was assigned to hardship and non-family posts, when the minutes of the above-mentioned recourse session indicate that her entire career was considered. Accordingly, the applicant has not established that the decision denying her promotion in 2007 was taken improperly or that it was vitiated by a manifest error. Her application must therefore be rejected.