2017-��AT-798

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, ��AT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. ��AT found that ��RWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant��s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), ��AT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, ��RWA DT was correct that the decision to suspend him without pay, pending the outcome of the investigation, was properly and lawfully effected and that this decision was reasonable and lawful. ��AT held that the appeal succeeded in part. ��AT vacated ��RWA DT��s rejection of the complaints regarding the administrative decision to postpone the Appellant��s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process, rescinded the administrative decision, and remanded the case to ��RWA to consider whether the Appellant��s injuries were attributable to the performance of his duties.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to postpone his separation on medical grounds until the end of a disciplinary process and the decision to place him on Special Leave Without Pay (SLWOP). ��RWA DT dismissed the application in its entirety. ��RWA DT found that both decisions were lawful.

Legal Principle(s)

The discretionary power of the Administration is not unfettered; the Commissioner-General has an obligation to act in good faith and comply with applicable laws.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

Outcome Extra Text

No relief was 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

Dibs

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement