Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge was to a recommendation of the Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel, and as an ethics recommendation, it was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Thus, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly dismissed this part of the application as not receivable.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Administration¡¯s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendation could not have been understood by the Ethics Office to be a request to conduct a new review. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was that the decision was made by the Ethics Office following ¡°exchanges¡± with the Administration and OIOS. However, these did not amount to instructions or directions from the Administration.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that OIOS¡¯ decision not to investigate her retaliation complaint was defensible, given that the referral to OIOS stemmed from the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendation, which was itself legally flawed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in this determination either.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of theOffice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) contested the Ethics Office¡¯s decision to conduct a new review of the Ethics Office¡¯s October 2019 determination on the staff member¡¯s 2019 request for Protection against Retaliation (PAR Request). The new review by the June 2021 Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel was conducted after the rejection of the recommendation of a prior March 2020 Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel. The former staff member also challenged the failure of OIOS to conduct an investigation into her PAR Request pursuant to the recommendation of the March 2020 Alternate Chair.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/122, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application in its entirety. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the findings of the Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel in June 2021 were not subject to judicial review, given that they were recommendations of the Ethics Office. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also concluded that the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) had valid reasons not to investigate her retaliation complaint, because the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendation arose from a flawed process.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT thus dismissed the application in its entirety. The former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
Ethics recommendations (and related procedural steps) are not appealable administrative decisions as are decisions made following the recommendatory process.
A contestable administrative decision must be one that produces legal consequences and is final. Intermediate steps and processes (including advice given that may lead to an administrative decision) do not constitute final reviewable administrative decisions.