2015-罌厭弝ⅰAT-546

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant did not establish any procedural errors warranting the reversal of the judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision that stemmed from the Appellant＊s performance appraisal and that the comments of his Second Reporting Officer (SRO) reflected no more than a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees, and did not of itself constitute an independent, administrative decision capable of being appealed. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT correctly concluded that the Appellant＊s challenge which related to the comments of his SRO in his 2011-12 performance appraisal was not receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not err when it considered that the Appellant＊s challenge to the failure of the Administration to allow him to comment on his mid-point review in relation to his 2012-2013 performance appraisal cycle was moot, since he was given the opportunity previously omitted and did not take advantage of it. 罌厭弝ⅰAT upheld the decision of 罌厭弝ⅰDT, namely that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract in a timely manner and therefore his appeal was not receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the ground of appeal challenging the rejection by the Ethics Office of the Appellant＊s request for protection against retaliation also failed as it had no merit. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant＊s request for a referral for accountability of certain persons necessarily failed. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the following: the finding of the Management Evaluation Unit that his challenge to comments entered in his performance appraisal was time-barred; the denial of his right to comment on his mid-point review for his performance appraisal; the failure by the Ethics Office to find that he had been subjected to retaliation; and 罌厭弝ⅰ-Habitat＊s decision not to renew his appointment. 罌厭弝ⅰDT dismissed his application.

Legal Principle(s)

罌厭弝ⅰAT will not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT in the management of cases. 罌厭弝ⅰDT has a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto. A positive performance rating does not constitute an administrative decision able, by itself, to have a direct and negative impact on a staff member＊s rights.

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 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

Staedtler

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement