2014-罌厭弝ⅰAT-423

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant＊s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of 罌厭弝ⅰDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of 罌厭弝ⅰDT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish an excess of jurisdiction or competence on part of 罌厭弝ⅰDT. Regarding 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 58 (GVA/2013), in which 罌厭弝ⅰDT rejected the Appellant＊s motion for disclosure whereby he asked 罌厭弝ⅰDT to request the Secretary-General to provide additional documents and that the proceedings be stayed, and the motion that travel costs be granted to him and his counsel, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the exercise carried out by 罌厭弝ⅰDT was no more than case management exercise and, therefore, within its competence and jurisdiction. Regarding 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 160 (GVA/2013), in which 罌厭弝ⅰDT ordered the Secretary-General to provide it with certain documentation referable to the disciplinary measures, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in applying Administrative Instruction ST/AI/371. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeals against 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 58 (GVA/2013), and 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 160 (GVA/2013) as not receivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to dismiss him from service for claiming and receiving a rental subsidy from the Organisation, to which he was allegedly not entitled. 罌厭弝ⅰDT issued a judgment on receivability and found that the application was not time-barred and, therefore, receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰDT issued a second judgment finding that the decision to dismiss the Applicant was tainted by procedural errors. 罌厭弝ⅰDT, however, found that the Applicant had committed serious misconduct and that, had the procedural irregularities not occurred, the misconduct would have merited dismissal. 罌厭弝ⅰDT concluded that the loss of the Applicant＊s job was attributable not to the purely technical illegality committed by the Administration but solely to the Applicant＊s misconduct. 罌厭弝ⅰDT ordered that the decision to dismiss the Applicant be rescinded on the grounds of procedural defect. 罌厭弝ⅰDT ordered, should the Secretary-General elect not to execute the rescission, that no compensation should be paid to the Applicant and the evidence relating to the disciplinary proceedings should remain in the personal files. 罌厭弝ⅰDT dismissed all other pleas.

Legal Principle(s)

In an appeal from an interlocutory decision, the staff member must demonstrate that 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact or procedure.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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

Bastet

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry