2013-Ģ��ƵAT-301

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s submissions were largely a reiteration of his arguments before Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in finding that there was no indication that the non-renewal decision or other incidents amounted to harassment. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err when it concluded that the behaviours at stake, even when viewed together, did not point to any kind of prohibited conduct in the sense of ST/SGB/2008/5. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT��s findings that the advice given to the Appellant regarding uncertified sick leave was correct. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s allegation that the decision not to approve his annual leave request was arbitrary and capricious had no foundation. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly applied the criteria for launching a fact-finding investigation and the Appellant had not demonstrated any error in Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that the decision, that there were not sufficient grounds to warrant a fact-finding investigation, was tainted by any procedural flaw. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had not established that Ģ��ƵDT overlooked violations of his due process rights. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated any error in the Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that he had not been subjected to harassment and that the decision not to undertake further enquiries was not in breach of his terms of appointment. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision rejecting his requests for investigation into his allegations of harassment, discriminatory treatment and abuse of authority in various forms, including the non-renewal of his appointment. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Left deliberately blank

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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

Osman

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement