2019-Ģ��ƵAT-931

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Appellant��s appeal primarily challenged the decision of Ģ��ƵDT not to hold an oral hearing, purportedly denying him a fair trial and due process. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the reason for the decisions to temporarily limit the authority of the Applicant pending a management review was not in contention. Ģ��ƵAT held that the withdrawal of the delegations did not unduly detract from the Appellant��s core functions, though his discretion to interact with various stakeholders was significantly restricted and he was constrained by a firmer level of accountability and closer scrutiny of his performance. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not act improperly in the exercise of its discretion in terms of holding that further oral evidence would not assist in clarifying the issues in contention over and above identification of some inaccuracies, the resolution of which would not disturb the essential factual findings and the reasons for the decisions. Ģ��ƵAT held Ģ��ƵDT was correct in holding that the Executive Director was best placed to understand the legitimate managerial needs of the Organisation and enjoyed a margin of appreciation. Ģ��ƵAT held that the undisputed facts sufficiently demonstrated that there was a rational connection between the information available to the Executive Director, the reasons given for the contested decisions, and the purpose for which the decisions were taken. Ģ��ƵAT held that the decisions were tailored proportionally to the desired outcome without unduly restraining the Appellant from carrying out his job. Ģ��ƵAT held that the decisions were a legitimate, rational, and proportional exercise of the managerial prerogative. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested decisions to limit his authority. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application, finding that the contested decisions did not deprive him of the ability to function, rather they subjected him to stricter scrutiny by his superiors as a result of concerns about his conduct, which was perceived to be against the interests of Ģ��Ƶ-Habitat. Ģ��ƵDT held that the decisions taken were preventive, rational, and proportionate in view of the perceived risks.

Legal Principle(s)

In matters involving no disciplinary sanction, Tribunals are required to defer appropriately to the managerial process and to reasonable exercises of managerial discretion necessary to run, manage and operate the Organisation. Managerial decisions should be sustained, provided they are free from invidious or improper motivations and are based upon the exercise of reason and proper judgment.

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

El-Awar

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement