2024-Ģ��ƵAT-1463

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Ģ��ƵRWA DT had ordered each party to nominate a psychiatrist, who in turn were to designate a third psychiatrist to review whether the staff member��s mental condition at the time he committed the burglary, sentencing for which had been the grounds for his separation in the interest of the Agency.The Commissioner-General failed to comply with this instruction, without explanation, thereby leaving the Ģ��ƵRWA DT with no medical information about AAW's condition at the time of the burglary.

The Ģ��ƵAT found that the Commissioner-General had clearly and manifestly abused the proceedings by a series of intentional acts and serious omissions which had the effect of significantly obstructing and delaying the proceedings and had deprived the staff member of his right to substantive justice. Considering the gravity of the Commissioner-General��s abuse of process, the Ģ��ƵAT increased the amount awarded to the staff member from USD 4,000 to USD 15,000.

The Ģ��ƵAT was of the view that the Ģ��ƵRWA DT had erred, fundamentally, by making crucial inferences in favour of the obstructing party. The Ģ��ƵAT held that on remand, the Ģ��ƵRWA DT should consider it within its jurisdiction to directly appoint a psychiatrist to conduct an appropriate examination and provide the medical opinion.

The Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵWRA DT issuing its judgment without waiting until the staff member received the Arabic translation of the Commissioner-General��s closing arguments had not comported with the standards of good practice but that this error had not affected the substance of the judgment.

The Ģ��ƵAT granted the appeal, modified the Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s Judgment in respect of the award of costs and reversed it in the remaining part, and remanded the case to a different judge of the Ģ��ƵRWA DT for a review on the merits.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member contested the decision to terminate his appointment in the interest of Ģ��ƵRWA due to having been convicted of burglary and sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

In Judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2023/014, the Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed the application on the merits and awarded costs against the Commissioner-General in the amount of USD 4,000 for abuse of process in favour of the staff member.

The staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

It is incumbent upon the Appeals Tribunal to determine whether the Dispute Tribunal exceeded, or failed to exercise, its jurisdiction, or erred on a question of law, procedure or fact to the extent it was exercising its jurisdiction.

When a party to an administrative or judicial proceeding fails to comply with an order regarding the production of evidence or to comply with orders regarding the formation of a record for decision, the appropriate consequence is the making of inferences adverse to that party or estopping that party from maintaining a factual position on the subject.

Outcome

Appeal granted, Case remanded

Outcome Extra Text

The Ģ��ƵAT increases the award of costs against the Commissioner-General for abuse of process.

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

AAW

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement