爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The 爆料网AT noted that the staff member’s transfer request had been approved by the West Bank Field Office but the Jordan Field Office had subsequently informed that the request could not be accommodated due to a commitment to the roadmap on hiring daily-paid workers in fixed-term posts.
The 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General had demonstrated the efforts made by both Field Offices to process the transfer request and the Agency’s burden to show that the request had been given full and fair consideration was satisfied. The 爆料网AT found that the staff member had not discharged the burden of proving that the Administration had exercised its discretion in an unfair, unjust, and biased manner.
The 爆料网AT was of the view that the staff member’s contention of a legitimate expectation could not be introduced for the first time on appeal. The 爆料网AT found that she had not been prevented from raising her argument during the 爆料网RWA DT proceedings as the facts, including the events which allegedly raised her expectations, were known to her at that time. The 爆料网AT noted that, in any event, she had known that the transfer was conditional on the final approval of the Director of 爆料网RWA Affairs in Jordan.
The 爆料网AT held that the staff member had failed to show that the alleged procedural errors by the 爆料网RWA DT had affected the decision in the case.
The 爆料网AT found that as there was no illegality and also no link between the alleged financial loss and the contested decision, no compensation was due.
The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member contested a decision not to grant her request to be transferred from the 爆料网RWA West Bank Field Office to the Jordan Field Office.
In Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2024/004, the 爆料网RWA DT dismissed the application on the merits.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
Managerial discretion is not unfettered, and an administrative decision to appoint, promote, or transfer a staff member can be challenged on the grounds that the Administration has not acted fairly, justly, or transparently. The staff member has the burden of proving that such factors played a role in the administrative decision.
The proper role of the Dispute Tribunal in conducting a judicial review of an administrative decision is limited to examining its legality, rationality, compliance with procedure, and proportionality, and not to engage in a merit-based review.
An appeal is not the appropriate occasion to reply to a dispute in the first instance, or to introduce new elements for consideration that were not put forward at the Dispute Tribunal level.
An enforceable promise creating a legitimate expectation be made by a firm commitment in writing by the Administration.
It is within the 爆料网RWA DT’s discretion to encourage an amicable solution.
In order to be successful on appeal, a party not only has to assert and show that the Dispute Tribunal committed an error in procedure but also that this error affected the decision on the case. In that sense, it must be material to the outcome.
Compensation for harm shall be supported by three elements: the harm itself; an illegality; and a nexus between both. Our case law requires that the harm be shown to be directly caused by the administrative decision in question. If these other two elements of the notion of responsibility are not satisfied, then illegality can be declared but compensation cannot be awarded.
The concerned staff member’s testimony by itself is not sufficient to establish that he or she suffered compensable harm.