2019-��AT-973

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

MOn the issue of receivability, ��AT held that ��DT erred in concluding that the application was receivable in its entirety, as each of the three decisions taken on ALWOP were distinct and the Appellant failed to seek management evaluation of the first and second decisions. ��AT held the application was only receivable ratione materiae in respect of the third and last decision. ��AT held that ��DT��s finding that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant the extension of the Appellant��s ALWOP was a material error of law. ��AT held that ��DT erred in concluding that 12 months ALWOP was unjust and unlawful because of its duration. ��AT upheld the appeal and vacated the ��DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to place him on ALWOP pending the completion of an investigation into allegations of misconduct in the form of sexual exploitation and abuse and the ensuing disciplinary process. ��DT found that the placement on ALWOP for 12 months was unlawful and ordered payment of the salary that had been unlawfully withheld.

Legal Principle(s)

The applicable standard of proof to determine whether exceptional circumstances warranting the placement of a staff member on Administrative Leave Without Pay (ALWOP) is that of probable cause. Reasonable grounds to believe that sexual misconduct has occurred may be considered as exceptional circumstances warranting the placement of a staff member on ALWOP.

Outcome

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 ��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

Gisage

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement