2015-罌厭弝ⅰAT-544

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General and the cross-appeal of Mr Nartey. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT made an error of law when it found the decision to deny Mr Nartey＊s request to grant him a lien on his post was an abuse of authority. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Mr Nartey did not satisfy his burden to show the impugned decision was based on a retaliatory motive. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT made an error of law when it concluded that the impugned decision was retaliatory. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT also made factual errors regarding retaliation and these errors resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in law when it inferentially concluded that the decision of the Ethics Office not to receive Mr Nartey＊s report of retaliation was in violation of the Order of 罌厭弝ⅰDT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its competence in considering sua sponte the decision of the Ethics Office. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, as the merits of the Ethics Office decision were not properly before 罌厭弝ⅰDT, 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in fact and law when it found that the Director of the Ethics Office violated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order and referred the Director to the Secretary-General for accountability. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded it competence or jurisdiction and erred as a matter of law when it found that D/DAS had created a hostile work environment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no basis for the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s award of compensation or moral damages. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no merit to Mr Nartey＊s cross-appeal in light of its determinations that the awards of compensatory and moral damages were without legal bases. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s decision that there was no ground to award costs to Mr Narley was not erroneous. 罌厭弝ⅰAT granted the appeal, vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment and denied the cross-appeal.

Accountability Referrals: 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred by referring the D/DAS to the Secretary-General for accountability on the grounds of retaliation and harassment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT referrals of the Director of the Ethics Office and the D/DAS, 罌厭弝ⅰON to the Secretary-General for accountability.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Nartey contested, inter alia, the decision not to grant him a lien on his post while on a mission to 罌厭弝ⅰAMID. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found the decision was an abuse of authority and awarded compensation, including moral damages. 罌厭弝ⅰDT also referred the Director of the Ethics Office and the Director of the Division of Administrative Services (D/DAS) of the United Nations Office Nairobi (罌厭弝ⅰON) to the Secretary-General for accountability, pursuant to Article 10(8) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute.

Legal Principle(s)

罌厭弝ⅰDT has the inherent power to issue orders to protect witnesses who testify before it from retaliation by a party.

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 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

Nartey

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement