爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the decision to set up a fact-finding panel was not, in and of itself, a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member. 爆料网AT held that such a decision was preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the application was receivable was without legal basis as was its award of compensation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred on a question of law and exceeded its competence in accepting the application as receivable. Turning to Mr Birya’s claims regarding the 爆料网ON Administration in relation to him being detained and charged by the Kenyan police, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s conclusion that this matter was receivable was without legal basis as it was before the fact-finding panel at the time of Mr Birya’s application to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.
Accountability referral: 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Birya challenged the manner in which his harassment complaint had been dealt with and the alleged decision by management of the United Nations Office at Nairobi (爆料网ON) to use the Kenyan police to resolve the said complaint. 爆料网DT found for Mr Birya, awarded moral damages and made a referral of the matter to the Secretary-General to enforce accountability.
Legal Principle(s)
The key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences which affect a staff member’s terms or conditions of appointment. Deciding to set up a fact-finding panel is not of itself a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member; such a step is preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process.