2018-Ģ��ƵAT-868

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in reopening a matter that had already been the subject of a final judgment of Ģ��ƵAT. Ģ��ƵAT considered that Ģ��ƵDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by making its own determination of Mr Sarwar��s harassment complaint, emphasising that the role of the Tribunal is not to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred when it rescinded the contested decision to close the matter underlying the Appellant��s formal complaint, and when it ruled that there was no need for a new investigation as the Appellant was found to be the victim of harassment and abuse of authority. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred by finding that there had been unlawful procedural delays with respect to reviewing Mr Sarwar��s harassment complaint and that the Investigation Panel had made a commitment to hold a second interview with Mr Sarwar, and that such delay and the decision not to hold a second interview did not amount to a breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. On the issue of compensation, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction when awarded the Appellant moral damages, given that there was no causal link between the moral harm alleged and the medical evidence presented. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to reject his formal complaint of harassment and abuse of authority against the First and Second Reporting Officers (FRO and SRO). Ģ��ƵDT held that the Investigation Panel incorrectly found that there had been no harassment or abuse of authority within the meaning of ST/SGB/2008/5. Ģ��ƵDT found that there had been procedural irregularities. Ģ��ƵDT rescinded the contested decision to close the matter underlying the Applicant��s formal complaint and held that there was no need for a new investigation as the Applicant was found to be the victim of harassment and abuse. Ģ��ƵDT awarded moral damages.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT exceeds its jurisdiction when it reopens a matter that has already been the subject of a final judgment of Ģ��ƵAT. It is not the role of Ģ��ƵDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Ģ��ƵDT does not have the jurisdiction to conduct a de novo investigation into a harassment complaint and to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General.

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 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

Sarwar

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement