2014-罌厭弝ⅰAT-400

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issues for decision had been clearly defined by the parties＊ submissions. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Secretary-General had failed to persuade it that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it was correct to conclude that the Administration had acted unlawfully when it did not renew the staff member＊s appointment because there was not enough evidence to support a determination that the staff member had failed to perform his functions. 罌厭弝ⅰAT concluded that the Administration＊s decision became arbitrary. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, even though it did not necessarily share all the arguments that 罌厭弝ⅰDT adopted in support of the conclusion that the non-renewal was tainted by extraneous factors or improper motives, the conclusion was not absurd or unreasonable since it was mainly based on the unlawful performance procedure. Regarding the compensation for material damages, 罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment because there was no relevant interruption between the staff member＊s end of service with OCHA and the commencement of his new appointment with 罌厭弝ⅰOPS and he had not established that he had in fact suffered loss of earnings. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the nature of the non-renewed position, the context in which it was taken and the fact that the staff member was appointed to a new position, indicated non-permanent damage whose relevance should not be considered out of proportion. 罌厭弝ⅰAT reduced the sum awarded by 罌厭弝ⅰDT for non-pecuniary damages to USD 10,000, finding the previous sum awarded excessive. 罌厭弝ⅰAT granted the appeal in relation to the award of costs against the Administration since the impugned judgment erred on a question of law by qualifying as abuse the simple introduction of motions, irrespective of whether these were subsequently granted. 罌厭弝ⅰAT affirmed the illegality of the performance appraisal for 2008-2009 and related statements in the personnel file as established by 罌厭弝ⅰDT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT upheld the appeal in part and vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment in part.

Accountability Referral: 罌厭弝ⅰAT affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no reason for 罌厭弝ⅰAT to interfere with 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s discretion regarding the referral of certain staff members or former staff members to the Secretary-General for accountability purposes.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his appointment. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found that the Office of Coordination of Human Affairs (OCHA) incorrectly considered a few unsubstantiated complaints made against the Applicant without investigating them and that there was no evidence that the Applicant had failed to perform his functions. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found that the failure to follow performance appraisal rules had resulted in denial of due process. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found that the decision of OCHA management not to renew the Applicant＊s contract was tainted by extraneous factors or improper motives and the non-renewal was unlawful. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found that the requirements of due process and fairness had been disregarded by OCHA in relation to the way the Applicant was separated from service. 罌厭弝ⅰDT ordered payment of compensation for material and moral damages and awarded costs against the Secretary-General in the amount of USD10,000. 罌厭弝ⅰDT ordered the implementation of the recommendations of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances＊ (PDOG), which were an official apology from senior OCHA management to the Applicant and the conduct of a formal investigation into the harassment exercised against the Applicant by the United Nations Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator (RC/HC). 罌厭弝ⅰDT also ordered that the Applicant's performance appraisal 2008-2009 be nullified and that all adverse material in relation to it be purged from the Applicant＊s personnel file.

Legal Principle(s)

It is imperative that the Administration adheres to the rule of law and standards of due process in its decision-making. If the Administration does not follow the clear norms which apply to evaluate staff members＊ performance, it risks arbitrariness and bears the burden of proof that an evaluation reached after an irregular procedure is nonetheless objective, fair and well based. 罌厭弝ⅰDT has a discretionary power to refer certain individuals to the Secretary-General for accountability purposes, but such an exercise of discretion cannot constitute a ground for appeal since the referral only implies a communication from 罌厭弝ⅰDT to the Secretary-General for him or her to determine the course of action to adopt or not to adopt as a sequel to the referral.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT 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

Tadonki

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement