爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered Ms Worsley’s appeal and the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal. 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence that OSLA’s decision to not represent Ms Worsley was based on her disability. 爆料网AT noted that Ms Worsley did not show how OSLA’s actions affected her rights or her case, as she was simply repeating arguments that 爆料网DT previously considered in its judgment. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment with regard to its decision that the right of staff members to receive assistance from OSLA does not amount to a right to be represented by OSLA.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ms Worsley contested OSLA’s discretionary decision to refuse to continue to provide her with legal assistance on the basis that the lawyer/client relationship had broken down irretrievably. 爆料网DT held that it had jurisdiction over the application and that the contested decision had been properly taken by OSLA. 爆料网DT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
The services provided by OSLA and the manner in which the representation is implemented can have an impact on a staff member’s terms of appointment and therefore can fall within the jurisdiction of the 爆料网DT, without interfering with the professional independence of OSLA counsel. Staff members have the right to receive legal assistance from OSLA, which does not amount to a right to be represented.