2015-��AT-499

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

On the question of maintaining confidentiality, ��AT held that the Appellant had not provided persuasive reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of his case and did not grant his petition. ��AT held that a decision not to review the closure of an investigation, which had been impugned by a staff member as procedurally or substantively irregular, was a decision that affected a staff member��s legal rights and that it, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to judicial review. ��AT held that the specific provisions of ICAO��s personnel instruction should have led to a different conclusion as it expressly provided for the review of a decision to close an investigation into alleged misconduct and thereafter for the filing of an appeal against that decision. ��AT held that the Appellant��s submission was submitted in a timely manner to the AJAB and, as it was receivable, it should have been considered on the merits. ��AT held that the parties�� requests not to remand the case to the AJAB were unsubstantiated. ��AT allowed the appeal in part and remanded the case to the AJAB for consideration on the merits.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Fedorchenko challenged the closure of an investigation. On the basis of a recommendation from the ICAO Advisory Joint Appeals Board (AJAB), the Secretary-General of ICAO decided that his application was not receivable ratione materiae.

Legal Principle(s)

The Administration has the duty to conduct investigations into the alleged conduct of staff members with the respective applicable norms. This does not imply, however, that the regularity of the closed proceedings cannot be examined when challenged by a staff member whose rights were allegedly violated during the proceedings.

Outcome

Appeal granted

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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

Fedorchenko

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement