2016-Ģ��ƵAT-626

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that, since the Appellant had not made an application to the Ģ��ƵRWA Internal Justice Committee on the issue of the recusal and conflict of interest, it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish in his appeal that it was unreasonable for Ģ��ƵRWA DT to conclude that there was no evidence of bias in the decision to abolish his post. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵRWA DT Judgment: The Applicant, a former Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s staff member, contested the decision to abolish his post and transfer him to the Education Department, claiming that it was based on the personal bias by the full-time Ģ��ƵRWA DT Judge, who wanted to terminate his contract. The Ģ��ƵRWA DT Judge determining the instant case disclosed in the judgment that he knew the full-time Judge responsible for the contested decision on a professional basis and noted that, while he would ordinarily have recused himself from considering the case, it was not in the interest of justice for him to do so as it would mean that the Appellant��s case could not be adjudicated by the Ģ��ƵRWA DT or any other court and this would constitute a denial of justice. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found that there was no bias in the decision to abolish the Applicant��s post as it was a decision taken only in the interest of Ģ��ƵRWA DT, notably to meet the Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s need to recruit a translator with more seniority, responsibilities, and competencies than the Applicant. Ģ��ƵRWA DT rejected the Applicant��s claim that the decision to transfer him to the Education Department was unlawful. Ģ��ƵRWA DT also rejected the Applicant��s claim that the decision to place him on an OTI process was to ultimately terminate his appointment for non-satisfactory performance.

Legal Principle(s)

The test for determining whether a judge is biased is if a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there is a real possibility that the judge was biased. It is expected in the normal course of things that Judges, like other professionals, will know each other. The fact that persons share a professional relationship is not sufficient, on the face of it, to prove that there is a conflict of interest or bias.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

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

Masri

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement