Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. It found that the staff member did, in fact, challenge an administrative decision which she claimed was in non-compliance with her terms of employment. Consequently, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had jurisdiction to decide whether or not to order the conduct of an investigation or take other courses of action concerning the staff member¡¯s allegations and complaints. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, by instead finding the staff member¡¯s application not receivable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted in contravention of Section 5.6 of Secretary-General¡¯s Bulletin ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority), which entitles the staff member, as an affected individual, to request judicial review of the contested decision.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction by proceeding to assess the merits of the case after having determined that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal, reversed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2024/026 and remanded the case to the Dispute Tribunal for consideration by a different Judge.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member of the United Nations Environment Programme (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP) contested the decision of the Administration to close her complaint filed with the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), in which she alleged harassment and abuse of authority by her Second Reporting Officer (SRO).
In its Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2024/026, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the staff member¡¯s application as not receivable ratione materiae, determining that the decision she challenged did not have a direct or adverse effect on her. Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered the merits of her application and concluded that the Administration had properly exercised its discretion in assessing whether an investigation was necessary.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
When a staff member files a complaint alleging administrative violations of law, the Administration has the discretion to decide whether to initiate an investigation. However, this discretion does not mean that the administrative decision to undertake, or not to undertake, an investigation cannot be subject to judicial review. Whether or not the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may review such a decision depends on whether it falls within its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute.
Specifically, when a complaint raises issued governed by ST/SGB/2019/8, the staff member is entitled to certain procedural guarantees. If dissatisfied with the outcome of the matter, the staff member may seek judicial review of the administrative decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has jurisdiction to examine the administrative action (or omission) following a request for investigation and to determine whether it was conducted in accordance with the applicable legal framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT can also determine the legality of the investigation process.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would exceed its competence if it were it to rule on the merits of an application that was found to be non-receivable.