2013-Ģ��ƵAT-381

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2012/159; an appeal by the ��Applicant�� (anonymity granted) against judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2013/079; and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General of judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2013/079. On receivability, Ģ��ƵAT considered the Secretary-General��s case that Ģ��ƵDT erred on the issue of receivability as the non-disciplinary issues contested by the Applicant were never submitted for management evaluation. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT, in deciding that the non-disciplinary issues had been submitted for management evaluation, erred in law and in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision and that, as a result, Ģ��ƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding on the merits of the Applicant��s application when it was not receivable insofar as it related to the non-disciplinary issues. On the merits, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT��s award of expenses incurred by the Applicant related to a non-disciplinary issue, which had not been submitted for management evaluation, could not stand. Ģ��ƵAT held that the standard of the Ģ��ƵDT��s review of the disciplinary sanction was consistent with the jurisprudence of Ģ��ƵAT and the Applicant had not demonstrated that Ģ��ƵDT committed any error of law or fact. Ģ��ƵAT allowed the Secretary-General��s appeal and cross-appeal; set aside the Ģ��ƵDT judgment on Receivability; vacated the award of compensation for hotel, storage and airline penalties; and dismissed the Applicant��s appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested several decisions subsequent to an investigation into his misconduct, including the issuance of a reprimand; the requirement for him to take a paternity test in order to be reassigned; and the sanction of demotion. In judgment on receivability No. Ģ��ƵDT/2012/159, Ģ��ƵDT found for the Applicant on issues of receivability. In judgment on the merits No. Ģ��ƵDT/2013/079, Ģ��ƵDT found in part for the Applicant, awarding compensation for expenses incurred due to the delay to his departure as a result of the requirement for him to take a paternity test.

Legal Principle(s)

The purpose of management evaluation is to afford the Administration the opportunity to correct any errors in an administrative decision so as to avoid judicial review and that for this goal to be met, it is essential to clearly identify the administrative decision the staff member disputes.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits; Appeal granted

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

Applicant

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry