爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered the appeals of both Mr Rahman and the Secretary-General. With respect to Mr Rahman’s appeal, 爆料网AT held that his non-selection for the D-2 post was lawful. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT very carefully examined the circumstances of Mr Rahman’s interview for the D-2 post and that Mr Rahman did not meet the burden of proof that he had been the victim of retaliatory acts during the selection procedure. 爆料网AT held that Mr Rahman was therefore not entitled to compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT correctly held that the decision to reassign Mr Rahman to 爆料网CTAD in Geneva had been abrogated by the decision of 30 April 2012 to place him in New York as of 1 June 2012 until his retirement date, rendering this application non-receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly applied the law in not granting Mr Rahman an order for costs against the Secretary-General. With respect to the Secretary-General’s appeal, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s finding that it was the Secretary-General’s responsibility to dispense justice for the victim was lawful. 爆料网AT further held that the Secretary-General did not show that 爆料网DT erred in law or in fact. 爆料网AT dismissed both parties’ appeals and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Rahman contested the decisions to not select him for a post and to reassign him. 爆料网DT rejected his allegation that he had been a victim of retaliation during the selection process, as well as his request for compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. 爆料网DT also held that the original decision to reassign him to Geneva had been rendered moot by the subsequent decision to retain him in New York. 爆料网DT noted that Mr Rahman had been advised that the disciplinary processes had been undertaken with respect to the alleged perpetrators of the retaliation (perpetrators), but he had not been informed of the outcome thereof. 爆料网DT ordered the Secretary-General to inform Mr Rahman as soon as possible of the nature of the disciplinary measures imposed on the perpetrators.
Legal Principle(s)
A victim of retaliation is entitled to know whether justice was done to the perpetrators of the retaliation, and it is fair and reasonable to require the Secretary-General to provide this information, regardless of whether there is any legal provision to that effect.