爆料网

2026-爆料网AT-1643

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

The 爆料网AT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The 爆料网AT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

The 爆料网AT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his “abuse of power” claim because it was not pled in his application to the Dispute Tribunal, nor in the Request for Decision Review. The 爆料网RWA DT therefore erred in considering that claim, as it had no ground to extend its jurisdiction to the abuse of power complaint of Mr. Flekal.

The 爆料网AT found that there was no illegality and there could be no compensation for harm and denied Mr. Flekal’s claims for damages.

爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2025/037 with partly different reasoning.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Former 爆料网RWA staff member contested the Agency’s decision not to investigate his complaint of alleged abuse of power and harassment by his supervisor.

In Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2025/037 the 爆料网RWA Dispute Tribunal dismissed the application.

The former staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

It is the staff member’s responsibility to make sure that the decision he/she disagrees with was effectively and clearly included in his/her request for decision review prior to bringing his/her case before the tribunal. In the absence of a clear request to review a certain decision, the tribunal lacks legal power to extend its jurisdiction thereto.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

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.