2017-惇蹋厙AT-779

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

Ar惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT＊s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. 惇蹋厙AT held that the inference drawn by 惇蹋厙RWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates, was not reasonable in the circumstances. 惇蹋厙AT held that a number of facts were not sufficiently established before 惇蹋厙RWA DT, such as whether answers given in Arabic were translated. 惇蹋厙AT held that there was not an adequate fact-finding exercise by 惇蹋厙RWA DT, which would have enabled 惇蹋厙AT to review whether the administrative decision was lawful. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT＊s determinations that there was no bias, prejudice, and unlawfulness and that there was fair and adequate consideration were not supported by the facts. 惇蹋厙AT held that the fact-finding exercise was incomplete, which constituted a clear error of procedure and violation of due process such as to affect the decision of the case. 惇蹋厙AT granted the appeal, vacated the 惇蹋厙RWA DT judgment, and remanded the cases for a hearing de novo before a different 惇蹋厙RWA DT Judge and adjudication on the merits.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicants contested the decisions not to select them for a number of posts. 惇蹋厙RWA DT dismissed the applications.

Legal Principle(s)

Although broad discretion in case management is afforded to the trial judge, there are some facts that are so essential that they need to be established in the interest of justice, particularly when they are related to core aspects of the dispute. Due process requires that both parties be given an opportunity to present their case, produce evidence, and file submissions and/or motions.

Outcome

Appeal granted

Outcome Extra Text

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙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

Abu Hweidi et al.

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement