Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that no credible prima facie case of retaliation had been established was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review under Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in this case, the recommendation of the Ethics Office had no legal consequences for Mr Gehr. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of the Ethics Office was not an administrative decision, rather a recommendation, and in view of the lack of evidence, no compensation for moral injury should have been awarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Gehr challenged the determination made by the Ethics Office, that a prima facie case of retaliation had not been established, and the inordinate delay by the Ethics Office in reaching a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the Ethics Office did not err in reaching its determination. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, found that the Ethics Office had acted with an undue delay of almost ten months in responding to Mr Gehr¡¯s report of misconduct and that the delay had caused him anxiety and unnecessary frustration, for which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded compensation.
Legal Principle(s)
The key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment. What constitutes an administrative decision will depend on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision.