2017-Ģ��ƵAT-725

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. Ģ��ƵAT held that the only proper course for Ģ��ƵDT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General��s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed errors of law and procedure. Ģ��ƵAT allowed the appeal in part, set aside the Ģ��ƵDT judgment except for its finding on the receivability of the application, and remanded the case for a hearing de novo before a different Ģ��ƵDT Judge.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant challenged the decision made on behalf of the Secretary-General with regard to his Appendix D claim. Ģ��ƵDT found the decision to be unlawful as it breached the Applicant��s due process rights. Ģ��ƵDT remanded the matter back to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) for the procedural errors to be corrected and the Applicant��s Appendix D claim reconsidered. Ģ��ƵDT awarded compensation for the procedural delay.

Legal Principle(s)

The jurisprudence of the former Ģ��Ƶ Administrative Tribunal, though of persuasive value, is not a binding precedent for the Ģ��ƵDT and Ģ��ƵAT to follow. Article 17 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules does not make it obligatory for the staff member to request that a medical board be convened to review the Secretary-General��s determination, nor does it institute such a request as a condition of receivability of the application for judicial review of the relevant (negative) administrative decision taken on behalf of the Secretary-General.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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

Baracungana

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement