2016-Ģ��ƵAT-612

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the appeal by the Ģ��ƵRWA Commissioner-General. Ģ��ƵAT confirmed the findings and conclusions of the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment under appeal about the illegality of the closure of the investigation into the staff member��s complaints. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT had thoroughly conducted the judicial review of the challenged administrative decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT had conducted a legitimate exercise when it drew its conclusions from the investigation report. Ģ��ƵAT held that the irregularities, such as the failure to address the specific harassment complaint, several examples of abuse of power including sending performance evaluation-related emails and attempting to force the staff member to retire for health reasons, could be reasonably characterized as breaches of the Agency��s policies and regulations, meriting a finding of abuse of power and harassment. Ģ��ƵAT held that the requirements of Art. 2.1 of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute were not fulfilled since the impugned decision was not a manifestly unreasonable one due to an error of fact, law or procedure or an excess of jurisdiction, or the failure to exercise it. Ģ��ƵAT agreed with the rescission of the impugned administrative decision without an order for reinstatement since the staff member had been declared unfit to work for health reasons. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to close the investigation into his complaint of discrimination, abuse of power, and harassment against the Director of Ģ��ƵRWA Operations (DUO/J) on the basis that the reported misconduct was unsubstantiated, and requested, among other things, financial compensation for damages, distress and the consequences of his hospitalization leading to his separation. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found that DUO/J had abused her authority by improperly using her position to influence the Commissioner-General and that her conduct towards the Applicant could be characterized as harassment. Ģ��ƵRWA DT held that the Commissioner-General��s decision not to act on the harassment complaint was unlawful and had to be rescinded. Ģ��ƵRWA DT rejected the request for compensation for material damages and granted the request for compensation for moral damages.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT is not clothed with jurisdiction to investigate harassment complaints under Article 2 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute. However, for the purpose of determining if the impugned administrative decisions were improperly motivated, it is within the competence of the Ģ��ƵDT to examine allegations of harassment. This is different from a de novo investigation into a complaint of harassment.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

Only financial compensation

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

Dawas

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement