2020-Ģ��ƵAT-983

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the ISA JAB decision was correct in its finding that the appeal was receivable and not time-barred. However, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Special Agreement and the resulting Staff Rules did not comply with the Ģ��ƵAT Statute, which required a neutral first instance process, and that, accordingly, Ģ��ƵAT was unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second level tribunal. Ģ��ƵAT remanded the matter to the JAB to ensure compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Special Agreement and Article 2(10) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute, specifying that the Appellant��s appeal should be reconsidered and decided by a neutral first instance process that produces a written decision and record that includes a statement of the relevant facts and law, with written reasons and analysis.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

ISA decision: Mr Webster contested the decision to separate him from service due to unauthorized absence and leave. ISA Joint Appeals Board (JAB) declined to recommend that the ISA Secretary-General review his decision to separate the individual from service as it found that Mr Webster did not report for duty or take necessary steps over an extended period after the expiration of his sick leave.

Legal Principle(s)

The Ģ��ƵAT Statute requires that special agreements between the Ģ��Ƶ and other Organisations which agree to the jurisdiction of Ģ��ƵAT must establish a neutral first instance process and body to decide disputes and that the head of the Organisation whose decision is appealed, cannot constitute that neutral body. Ģ��ƵAT, as a second-level tribunal, cannot conduct its review without a decision from a neutral first instance process and body.

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

Webster

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement