爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The Secretary-General appealed, regarding the judgments on liability and relief. Mr. Wasserstorm also appealed regarding the judgment of relief. 爆料网AT agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and found that the recommendations are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. 爆料网AT accordingly upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal on receivability. 爆料网AT reversed the judgment on Liability and vacated the judgment on Relief. With respect to the award of costs, 爆料网AT found that the Secretary-General’s refusal to comply with the production or discovery orders issued by 爆料网DT was frivolous and vexatious. 爆料网AT accordingly held that 爆料网DT exercised its discretion correctly in awarding costs against the Secretary-General for abuse of the judicial process and affirmed the award of costs in the amount of UDS 15,000 against the Secretary-General. Judge Faherty’s Dissent: Judge Faherty found Mr. Wasserstorm’s application to 爆料网DT receivable and upheld 爆料网DT’s determination in that regard.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr. Wasserstorm requested administrative review of the decision to dismiss his complaint that he had been retaliated against for whistleblowing. 爆料网DT held that the decision in question was an administrative decision and, accordingly, was receivable. 爆料网DT upheld Mr. Wasserstorm’s complaint of retaliation but dismissed his claims regarding compensation for lost earnings and associated benefits. However, 爆料网DT found that Mr. Wasserstorm was entitled to non-pecuniary damages and awarded him USD 50,000. 爆料网DT also ordered the Secretary-General to pay Mr. Wasserstorm USD $15,000 as a contribution towards the latter’s costs for having to challenge the Secretary-General’s position on disclosure, as it found that the Secretary-General had “deliberately and persistently refus[ed], without good cause, to abide by the Orders of the [Dispute] Tribunal,” and engaged in “a manifest abuse of proceedings”.
Legal Principle(s)
The key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must “produce direct legal consequences” affecting a staff member’s terms or conditions of appointment. What constitutes an administrative decision will depend on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision.