爆料网

2018-爆料网AT-815

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

Both parties appealed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct regarding the non-receivability ratione materiae with respect to the first three decisions. 爆料网AT, however, disagreed with 爆料网DT’s finding that the Administration had unlawfully delayed check-out, including his final payments and the submission of the required forms for his pension, since the period of three and a half months which was taken by the Administration to investigate and proceed with Mr Nchimbi’s “check-out” was not unreasonable in the given circumstances. 爆料网AT upheld the Secretary-General's appeal and dismissed Mr Nchimbi’s appeal. 爆料网AT vacated the decision regarding the award of compensation and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment on the non-receivability ratione materiae.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Nchimbi contested the decision to (a) withhold his final payments and the delay in submitting forms for his pension for over six months after checking out from ICTR; (b) to unlawfully deduct his final leave days; (c) not to provide him with a copy of the report of an investigation conducted against him; and (d) the failure of the Secretary-General and the Office of Internal Oversight Services to intervene in the matter. 爆料网DT found that Mr Nchimbi had not requested a management evaluation of the first three decisions and concluded that the application was not receivable ratione materiae with respect to those decisions. 爆料网DT, thus, granted the application with respect to the decisions to withhold his final payment and to delay submitting the required forms for his pension. 爆料网DT ordered payment of compensation “for the three months’ unlawful procedural delay”.

Legal Principle(s)

In some cases, a delay on the part of the Administration might be a necessary step to ensure that there is proper governance within the Organisation and accountability for its property and, therefore, not unlawful.

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.