2015-Ģ��ƵAT-562

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that the decision to set up a fact-finding panel was not, in and of itself, a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member. Ģ��ƵAT held that such a decision was preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s conclusion that the application was receivable was without legal basis as was its award of compensation. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred on a question of law and exceeded its competence in accepting the application as receivable. Turning to Mr Birya��s claims regarding the Ģ��ƵON Administration in relation to him being detained and charged by the Kenyan police, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s conclusion that this matter was receivable was without legal basis as it was before the fact-finding panel at the time of Mr Birya��s application to Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Accountability referral: Ģ��ƵAT vacated the Ģ��ƵDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Birya challenged the manner in which his harassment complaint had been dealt with and the alleged decision by management of the United Nations Office at Nairobi (Ģ��ƵON) to use the Kenyan police to resolve the said complaint. Ģ��ƵDT found for Mr Birya, awarded moral damages and made a referral of the matter to the Secretary-General to enforce accountability.

Legal Principle(s)

The key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences which affect a staff member��s terms or conditions of appointment. Deciding to set up a fact-finding panel is not of itself a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member; such a step is preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process.

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

Birya

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement