2017-Ģ��ƵAT-733

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT denied the Appellant��s application for an oral hearing. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before Ģ��ƵDT with specific consideration of the following: Ģ��ƵDT��s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; Ģ��ƵDT��s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, Ģ��ƵDT��s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General��s reply translated; and Ģ��ƵDT��s failure to have specific annexes to the Appellant��s application translated into English. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not commit an error of law or exceed its jurisdiction. Ģ��ƵAT further held that a fact-finding investigation may only be undertaken if there are sufficient grounds or, respectively, reasons to believe that a staff member has engaged in unsatisfactory conduct for which a disciplinary measure may be imposed. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly held that the Appellant��s request for investigations against the Officer-in-Charge of the Management Evaluation Unit was lawfully denied by the Under-Secretary-General for Management. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no reason to believe that the Officer-in-Charge of the Management Evaluation Unit had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct. Noting that management evaluation is a mere condition of receivability of an application before the Ģ��ƵDT and did not form part of the contested administrative decision, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s submissions with regard to the management evaluation decision were not relevant on appeal. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the dismissal by the Under-Secretary-General for Management of two complaints that the Applicant had submitted against the Officer-in-Charge of the Management Evaluation Unit. The Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application in its entirety.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management. The instigation of disciplinary charges against a staff member is the privilege of the Organisation itself and it is not legally possible to compel the Administration to take disciplinary action. Only in particular situations does a staff member have a right to an investigation against another staff member and there are situations where the only possible and lawful decision of the Administration is to deny a staff member��s request to undertake an investigation against another staff member.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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

Nadeau

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement