2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-649

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant＊s rights as a staff member, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have 罌厭弝ⅰAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of 罌厭弝ⅰAT mandate. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal against 罌厭弝ⅰDT order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper only assessment and not embarking on an oral hearing. Regarding the appeal of judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2015/062, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had failed to refer to the internal document ※Closure Note§, which apparently recorded the investigation and conclusions reached by OAIS during its preliminary review about the complaints against Mrs A. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no indication on the face of the judgment that the written record of OAIS＊ preliminary investigation and conclusions had been considered by 罌厭弝ⅰDT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT was not satisfied that the conclusions reached by 罌厭弝ⅰDT had a proper legal basis in the absence of the aforesaid documentary record. 罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected to remove the anonymity which the 罌厭弝ⅰDT saw fit to give the staff member, Mrs A. 罌厭弝ⅰAT further held that the appeal raised a myriad of other matters which did not have any bearing on 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2015/062. 罌厭弝ⅰAT allowed the appeal and remanded the case to 罌厭弝ⅰDT for reconsideration.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested 罌厭弝ⅰFPA＊s inaction on her complaints of misconduct against Mrs A. By way of order No. 133 (GVA/2015) 罌厭弝ⅰDT informed the parties that the case would be decided on papers, without further hearings or submissions. 罌厭弝ⅰDT rendered its judgment on the merits, finding that the Applicant＊s complaint of 22 August 2014 to OAIS was sent almost seven months after she had transferred teams, such that she no longer worked with Mrs A. , and more than 11 months after she had been placed on Special Leave with Full Pay (SLWFP). Consequently, her complaint with OAIS was filed more than six months after the date of the last incident of harassment of which she complained, and thus did not respect the time limit set out in section 9. 3. 1 of 罌厭弝ⅰFPA＊s Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (2013 罌厭弝ⅰFPA Policy). 罌厭弝ⅰDT dismissed the application. The Applicant filed an appeal against the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment and order No. 133 (GVA/2015). The Applicant later filed a motion to request 罌厭弝ⅰAT to extend her rights as a staff member or to admit that they were extended by the Executive Director, 罌厭弝ⅰFPA. The Applicant further filed a motion requesting 罌厭弝ⅰAT, should it reject her case, to ※at least remove the immunity from the involved staff members§, so that she may bring her discrimination and harassment complaints against the concerned staff members in the Danish courts.

Legal Principle(s)

罌厭弝ⅰAT has consistently afforded 罌厭弝ⅰDT wide discretion in matters of case management and will not lightly interfere in such matters.

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

Nielsen

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement