2014-Ģ��ƵAT-444

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the Secretary-General��s appeal regarding the judgment on Receivability (Ģ��ƵDT/2011/063) and the judgment on the Merits (Ģ��ƵDT/2010/085). As a preliminary matter, Ģ��ƵAT denied Ms Hunt-Matthews' request for an oral hearing. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Secretary-General may properly appeal the judgment on Receivability as part of the judgment on the Merits and that it was timely. Ģ��ƵAT considered whether Ģ��ƵDT should have received Ms Hunt-Matthes�� application and found that it was not receivable ratione materiae. Ģ��ƵAT found that Ģ��ƵDT erred when it determined that Ms Hunt-Matthes�� claims of retaliation were covered by ST/SGB/2005/21 since her claims were based on events occurring in 2004, which was before ST/SGB/2005/21 went into effect. Ģ��ƵAT held that, since Ms Hunt-Matthes�� application should not have been received ratione materiae, Ģ��ƵDT was not competent to address the merits. However, Ģ��ƵAT noted that Ms Hunt-Matthes may still have had remedies for her complaint of retaliation or reprisal, pursuant to Section 5. 2. 8 of IMO/FMO/65/2003. Ģ��ƵAT granted the appeal, reversed Ģ��ƵDT��s judgment on Receivability and vacated Ģ��ƵDT��s judgment on the Merits.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ms Hunt-Matthes challenged the Ethics Office��s determination that there was no connection between her reporting of misconduct and the decision not to renew her contract. Ģ��ƵDT held that: Ms Hunt-Matthes had a right to be protected from retaliation; the Ethics Office applied the wrong criteria in considering whether she had engaged in protected activities; the Ethics Office failed to identify that the retaliatory acts alleged were the assessment of her performance as unsatisfactory and subsequent non-renewal of her appointment; and the Ethics Office failed to make a proper enquiry into the link between the protected activity and the alleged retaliation. Ģ��ƵDT awarded Ms Hunt-Matthes moral damages for her stress and anxiety caused by the Ethics Office��s breach of its duty to her.

Legal Principle(s)

The general rule that only appeals against final judgments are receivable does not apply where Ģ��ƵDT dismisses a case on the grounds that it is not receivable under Article 8 of the Ģ��ƵDT statute, as the case cannot proceed any further and there is in effect a final judgment. Laws may not be applied retroactively to incidents that occurred prior to their issuance.

Outcome

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

Hunt-Matthes

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry