爆料网

2016-爆料网AT-676

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal, specifically the question of whether Mr Wilson’s circumstances were sufficient to vitiate the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM’s decision. 爆料网AT recalled the criteria set out in Sanwidi, 2010-爆料网AT-084 (para. 42), according to which it can interfere with an administrative decision. 爆料网AT found that there was no basis for 爆料网DT to conclude that “no proper consideration was given to [Mr. Wilson’s] individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception in this case. ” 爆料网AT found that there was sufficient basis set out in the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM’s response for Mr Wilson, for the 爆料网AT, on judicial review, to be satisfied that the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM had regard to the case put for the exemption to be granted. While 爆料网AT noted that the Assistant Secretary-General of The Office of Human Resource Management (OHRM) could have been more discursive in her response to Mr Wilson, the fact that this did not occur did not displace the rebuttable presumption of regularity attached to the decision. 爆料网AT concluded that the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM did not preclude the exercise of discretion, rather discretion was not exercised in his favour. 爆料网AT upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal and reversed 爆料网DT’s judgment. Mr Wilson’s appeal on the quantum of damages was accordingly rendered moot and dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Wilson contested the Secretary-General’s decision to not grant him an exception to apply for a post. 爆料网DT held that Mr Wilson’s request for an exception was not given proper consideration by the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM and found that irrelevant factors were taken into consideration whereas relevant factors were not. 爆料网DT awarded Mr Wilson USD 3,000 as compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

Exceptions to the Staff Rules may be made by the Secretary-General, provided that such exception is not inconsistent with any Staff Regulation or other decision of the General Assembly and provided further that it is agreed to by the staff member directly affected and is, in the opinion of the Secretary-General, not prejudicial to the interests of any other staff member or group of staff members. When judging the validity of the Secretary-General’s exercise of discretion it is not the role of 爆料网DT to consider the correctness of the choice made by the Secretary-General amongst the various courses of action open to him. Nor is it the role of 爆料网DT to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits; Appeal granted

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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
Wilson
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type