2013-��AT-289

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

As a preliminary issue, ��AT held that ��RWA DT did not follow the proper procedure when it allowed the Respondent to participate in the proceedings without a formal request for waiver of time limit for filing its answer and taking part in the trial. ��AT held that another significant irregularity took place during the proceedings before ��RWA DT, in light of which ��AT was compelled to annul the judgment and remand the case for a de novo consideration by a different ��RWA DT Judge, namely that ��RWA DT committed an error in procedure when it denied the Appellant��s request for a copy of the investigation report, all the more so when one of the main reasons for his request was the allegation of conflict of interest and bias, which, he claimed, affected the administrative investigation that served as the basis for the termination of his contract. ��AT held that, when challenging a termination for disciplinary reasons, the staff member is entitled to review by him or herself the evidence used to support the conclusion of misconduct, to examine whether the fact-finding conducted by the Administration led to the conclusion and the impugned decision. ��AT held that the failure to provide the Appellant with the investigation report prejudiced his right to due process. ��AT annulled the ��RWA DT judgment and remanded the case for a de novo trial before a different ��RWA DT Judge.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

��RWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his appointment for misconduct in the form of multiple violent altercations and subsequently, an attempt to mislead the investigation. ��RWA DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Transparency, equal treatment of the parties and due respect to the quoted norm require that a formal motion be introduced when there is an attempt to file a late answer and that the other party must be notified and preferably heard about the petition before the Judge decides on the motion, through a proper and motivated order.

Outcome

Appeal granted

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT 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.

Applicants/Appellants

Wishah

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement