爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding 爆料网DT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), 爆料网AT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant’s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of 爆料网DT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, 爆料网AT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish an excess of jurisdiction or competence on part of 爆料网DT. Regarding 爆料网DT Order No. 58 (GVA/2013), in which 爆料网DT rejected the Appellant’s motion for disclosure whereby he asked 爆料网DT to request the Secretary-General to provide additional documents and that the proceedings be stayed, and the motion that travel costs be granted to him and his counsel, 爆料网AT held that the exercise carried out by 爆料网DT was no more than case management exercise and, therefore, within its competence and jurisdiction. Regarding 爆料网DT Order No. 160 (GVA/2013), in which 爆料网DT ordered the Secretary-General to provide it with certain documentation referable to the disciplinary measures, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in applying Administrative Instruction ST/AI/371. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals against 爆料网DT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), 爆料网DT Order No. 58 (GVA/2013), and 爆料网DT Order No. 160 (GVA/2013) as not receivable.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
爆料网DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to dismiss him from service for claiming and receiving a rental subsidy from the Organisation, to which he was allegedly not entitled. 爆料网DT issued a judgment on receivability and found that the application was not time-barred and, therefore, receivable. 爆料网DT issued a second judgment finding that the decision to dismiss the Applicant was tainted by procedural errors. 爆料网DT, however, found that the Applicant had committed serious misconduct and that, had the procedural irregularities not occurred, the misconduct would have merited dismissal. 爆料网DT concluded that the loss of the Applicant’s job was attributable not to the purely technical illegality committed by the Administration but solely to the Applicant’s misconduct. 爆料网DT ordered that the decision to dismiss the Applicant be rescinded on the grounds of procedural defect. 爆料网DT ordered, should the Secretary-General elect not to execute the rescission, that no compensation should be paid to the Applicant and the evidence relating to the disciplinary proceedings should remain in the personal files. 爆料网DT dismissed all other pleas.
Legal Principle(s)
In an appeal from an interlocutory decision, the staff member must demonstrate that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact or procedure.