爆料网

2013-爆料网AT-369

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT decision that the application was not receivable as consistent with 爆料网RWA Area Staff Rule 111. 2 and Article 8 of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute. On alleged errors in procedure, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had no opportunity to challenge the untimeliness of the Commissioner-General’s reply before 爆料网RWA DT, but that, since the Appellant had not demonstrated how the untimely reply affected 爆料网RWA DT’s decision on receivability, 爆料网AT found no merit on this ground. 爆料网AT held that there was no error in 爆料网RWA DT’s reasoning on the issue of EVR. 爆料网AT held that, absent an appealable administrative decision, 爆料网RWA DT lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate that element of the application. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

爆料网RWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to suspend him pending an investigation into allegations that he was involved in acts of corruption and abuse of authority, and that he invited and accepted bribes from beneficiaries. He also claimed that he had been coerced into opting for EVR and alleged due process violations. 爆料网RWA DT dismissed the application as not receivable.

Legal Principle(s)

爆料网DT does not have jurisdiction to consider applications that were not subject to administrative review where such review is a mandatory requirement under the Staff Rules. When a staff member claims that he or she has been coerced into resigning, the burden is on the staff member to prove the wrongful acts of the Administration. A staff member’s unilateral decision to request Early Voluntary Retirement (EVR) and the Agency’s acceptance of such a request does not give rise to a discretionary administrative decision for the purpose of appeal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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
Darwish
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type