Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims regarding the termination of his appointment and the procedures that resulted in the termination could not be received since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed no error in law by considering that the participation of the civil servant and his counsel in the hearing by video conference would not have violated the Appellant's rights of defence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the letter dated November 8, 2005, contained a sentence that could imply that, if the JDC requested the Applicant's appearance, the Applicant's request for travel expenses could be considered, this letter also insisted on the availability of videoconferencing equipment and could not be considered as providing the Appellant with precise assurances on the reimbursement of his travel expenses. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his appointment without notice on the grounds of serious misconduct. The former Administrative Tribunal of the United Nations issued a judgment rejecting the application. During the course of the process, the Applicant requested reimbursement of the travel expenses he incurred in travelling with his counsel from New York to Geneva where the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC) held a hearing in November 2005 on charges against him. The Secretary-General rejected the request. The Applicant filed an appeal with the Former Administrative Tribunal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, which was later transferred to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT issued judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/009 rejecting the application. The Applicant appealed this last decision on the reimbursement issue and also presented contentions against the procedure before the JDC and the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal.
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has no jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal or to reverse the final judgment of that Tribunal. The right to claim the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any public servant who finds himself in a situation in which it appears that the Administration, by making promises or giving specific assurances, has given rise to justified expectations on his part.