爆料网

2013-爆料网AT-381

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/159; an appeal by the “Applicant” (anonymity granted) against judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/079; and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/079. On receivability, 爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s case that 爆料网DT erred on the issue of receivability as the non-disciplinary issues contested by the Applicant were never submitted for management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, in deciding that the non-disciplinary issues had been submitted for management evaluation, erred in law and in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision and that, as a result, 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding on the merits of the Applicant’s application when it was not receivable insofar as it related to the non-disciplinary issues. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s award of expenses incurred by the Applicant related to a non-disciplinary issue, which had not been submitted for management evaluation, could not stand. 爆料网AT held that the standard of the 爆料网DT’s review of the disciplinary sanction was consistent with the jurisprudence of 爆料网AT and the Applicant had not demonstrated that 爆料网DT committed any error of law or fact. 爆料网AT allowed the Secretary-General’s appeal and cross-appeal; set aside the 爆料网DT judgment on Receivability; vacated the award of compensation for hotel, storage and airline penalties; and dismissed the Applicant’s appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested several decisions subsequent to an investigation into his misconduct, including the issuance of a reprimand; the requirement for him to take a paternity test in order to be reassigned; and the sanction of demotion. In judgment on receivability No. 爆料网DT/2012/159, 爆料网DT found for the Applicant on issues of receivability. In judgment on the merits No. 爆料网DT/2013/079, 爆料网DT found in part for the Applicant, awarding compensation for expenses incurred due to the delay to his departure as a result of the requirement for him to take a paternity test.

Legal Principle(s)

The purpose of management evaluation is to afford the Administration the opportunity to correct any errors in an administrative decision so as to avoid judicial review and that for this goal to be met, it is essential to clearly identify the administrative decision the staff member disputes.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits; Appeal granted

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
Applicant
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type