爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. 爆料网AT held that the only proper course for 爆料网DT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General’s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed errors of law and procedure. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal in part, set aside the 爆料网DT judgment except for its finding on the receivability of the application, and remanded the case for a hearing de novo before a different 爆料网DT Judge.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
爆料网DT judgment: The Applicant challenged the decision made on behalf of the Secretary-General with regard to his Appendix D claim. 爆料网DT found the decision to be unlawful as it breached the Applicant’s due process rights. 爆料网DT remanded the matter back to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) for the procedural errors to be corrected and the Applicant’s Appendix D claim reconsidered. 爆料网DT awarded compensation for the procedural delay.
Legal Principle(s)
The jurisprudence of the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal, though of persuasive value, is not a binding precedent for the 爆料网DT and 爆料网AT to follow. Article 17 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules does not make it obligatory for the staff member to request that a medical board be convened to review the Secretary-General’s determination, nor does it institute such a request as a condition of receivability of the application for judicial review of the relevant (negative) administrative decision taken on behalf of the Secretary-General.