Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
In her appeal, the Appellant contended that the Organisation owed her a duty of care as a result of the actions of its representatives. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant did not produce any evidence that the invoked injury was the result of negligence or fraud caused by a specific act or omission of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ or one of its representatives, or of the fact that the Organisation was aware of the fraud prior to the Appellant¡¯s allegations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim for damages could not be entertained as there was no nexus between the fraud and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, nor was the Organisation aware of the potential fraud. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that the Appellant never became, nor did she ever have the opportunity to become, a staff member of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and, consequently, did not have standing to seek protection from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ system of administration of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the Appellant did not identify any administrative decision by either OCHA or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA that fell within the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision of the Management Evaluation Unit that the appropriate evaluation group for her cause of action should be Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA¡¯s management evaluation group, claiming that the Administration was in breach of its duty of care towards her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed her application.
Legal Principle(s)
An organisation is liable for the consequences of its unlawful decisions, omissions or negligence, but an individual must produce sufficient evidence of a nexus between an alleged injury and the organisation¡¯s misconduct in order to recover.