2014-Ģ��ƵAT-453

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the appeals of both Mr Rahman and the Secretary-General. With respect to Mr Rahman��s appeal, Ģ��ƵAT held that his non-selection for the D-2 post was lawful. Ģ��ƵAT found that Ģ��ƵDT very carefully examined the circumstances of Mr Rahman��s interview for the D-2 post and that Mr Rahman did not meet the burden of proof that he had been the victim of retaliatory acts during the selection procedure. Ģ��ƵAT held that Mr Rahman was therefore not entitled to compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. Ģ��ƵAT found that Ģ��ƵDT correctly held that the decision to reassign Mr Rahman to Ģ��ƵCTAD in Geneva had been abrogated by the decision of 30 April 2012 to place him in New York as of 1 June 2012 until his retirement date, rendering this application non-receivable. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly applied the law in not granting Mr Rahman an order for costs against the Secretary-General. With respect to the Secretary-General��s appeal, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that it was the Secretary-General��s responsibility to dispense justice for the victim was lawful. Ģ��ƵAT further held that the Secretary-General did not show that Ģ��ƵDT erred in law or in fact. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed both parties�� appeals and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Rahman contested the decisions to not select him for a post and to reassign him. Ģ��ƵDT rejected his allegation that he had been a victim of retaliation during the selection process, as well as his request for compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. Ģ��ƵDT also held that the original decision to reassign him to Geneva had been rendered moot by the subsequent decision to retain him in New York. Ģ��ƵDT noted that Mr Rahman had been advised that the disciplinary processes had been undertaken with respect to the alleged perpetrators of the retaliation (perpetrators), but he had not been informed of the outcome thereof. Ģ��ƵDT ordered the Secretary-General to inform Mr Rahman as soon as possible of the nature of the disciplinary measures imposed on the perpetrators.

Legal Principle(s)

A victim of retaliation is entitled to know whether justice was done to the perpetrators of the retaliation, and it is fair and reasonable to require the Secretary-General to provide this information, regardless of whether there is any legal provision to that effect.

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

Rahman

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry