2021-惇蹋厙AT-1135

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

As a preliminary matter, 惇蹋厙AT declined Mr. Hossain＊s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙DT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain＊s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. 惇蹋厙AT held that the 惇蹋厙DT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. 惇蹋厙AT admitted on appeal the documentary evidence establishing Mr. Hossain＊s applications for alternative positions, and the rejections of them in the interests of justice and for the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings on their merits. 惇蹋厙AT held that Mr. Hossain＊s performance assessment, affirmed by the Rebuttal Panel, as ※partially satisfactory§ was an administrative decision and was, by its very nature, adverse to him, and his proceeding was therefore receivable by 惇蹋厙DT. 惇蹋厙AT allowed the appeal, set aside the 惇蹋厙DT Judgment and remanded the case, as receivable, to the 惇蹋厙DT for hearing.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr. Hossain contested the decision of the 惇蹋厙DP Rebuttal Panel to uphold his 2016 performance assessment rating of ※partially satisfactory§. In its Judgment on Receivability No. 惇蹋厙DT/2020/127, 惇蹋厙DT dismissed the application as not receivable on the grounds that the rating did not adversely affect him and thus did not have any direct legal consequence on his conditions of service that would make his application receivable by 惇蹋厙DT as required under Article 2(1) of the 惇蹋厙DT Statute.

Legal Principle(s)

While the 惇蹋厙DT has a very broad discretion, at least in non-disciplinary cases, to decide whether to conduct a hearing at which evidence is called orally or at which submissions can be made by parties on documents produced to the Tribunal, this is not an unlimited discretion.

Outcome

Appeal granted; Case remanded

Outcome Extra Text

N/A

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

Mohammad Tofazzel Hossain

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement