51�Թ�

Sec. 10.1 of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 provides that the action or inaction of the Administration on a recommendation from the Ethics Office under section 8 will constitute a contestable administrative decision under chapter XI of the Staff Rules if it has direct legal consequences affecting the terms and conditions of appointment of the complainant. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was receivable.

To determine whether the decision not to implement the March 2020 Alternate Chair’s recommendations was arbitrary, the Tribunal examined the grounds on which it was based.

The...

It is common cause that the recommendations, acts, or determinations of the UNEO are without direct legal consequences and do not constitute administrative decisions. The Administration’s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair’s report did not represent a request to the Ethics Office for its review, i.e., “a review of the review”. Available documentary evidence is that, within the applicable legal framework, exchanges took place between the Administration, the Ethics Office and OIOS concerning the acceptance or non-acceptance of the March 2020 Alternate Chair’s report and recommendations...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal.  

UNAT held that the finding that there was no causal link between the protected activity of Ms. Fosse and the detrimental behaviour of the Executive Secretary was a finding that a reasonable administrator could make. The conclusion that there was no causal link was based on the OIOS’s investigation, its engagement with other staff, the documentary information evidencing the essentially undisputed problematic relationship between Ms. Fosse and the Executive Secretary, the perceived poor performance of Ms. Fosse, and Ms. Fosse’s insistence on working only...

UNAT disagreed and found the background of the prior retaliation against the Staff Member affects the principle of the presumption of regularity. In light of the circumstances of this particular case, UNAT found the Administration bore the obligation to justify the lawfulness of its decision to cancel the Job Opening. UNAT thus found the UNDT erred by not requiring the Administration to establish its justification in law for the cancellation of the Job Opening. The administrative decision to cancel the Job Opening was rescinded, and the Tribunal set in lieu compensation at two years’ net base...

UNAT held that her appointment was terminated due to a lack of funding; several of her colleagues also had their fixed-term appointments terminated for the same reason at the same time. UNAT held that the fact that the Appellant may have complained about her working conditions or cooperated in any subsequent preliminary investigation into possible harassment, did not on its face exposes her to the termination. UNAT held that there was no reversible error on part of UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the Compensation Case, an appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Ethics Policy Case, and a cross-appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Compensation Case. UNAT held that a former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose from his or her employment and that there must be sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned action. UNAT held that an award for damages was justified in the circumstances. UNAT held that the amount of fourteen months’ net...

UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that OIOS operates under the “authority” of the Secretary-General but has “operational independence”. UNAT further noted that, insofar as the contents and procedures of an individual report are concerned, the Secretary-General has no power to influence or interfere with OIOS. UNAT held that UNDT also has no jurisdiction to do so, as it can only review the Secretary-General’s administrative decisions. UNAT, however, noted that to the extent that any OIOS decisions are used to affect staff members’ terms or contract of employment, OIOS’ reports may be...

UNAT held that, except for the Appellant’s own assertion, it found no evidence to show that he was a genuine whistle-blower. UNAT held that it was not a case of retaliation following a report of possible misconduct, but instead a disagreement between the Appellant and management regarding work matters which was properly addressed in the context of the performance assessment process. UNAT held that the non-renewal of the Appellant’s contract was not retaliatory but based on his performance rating which had been reviewed and confirmed after a rebuttal opportunity was given to the Appellant. UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT recalled that UNAT expressly held in Mmata (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-092) that Article 10. 5 of the UNDT Statute limited the total of all compensation to the equivalent of two years’ net base salary of the applicant, unless higher compensation was warranted and reasons were given to explain what makes the case exceptional. UNAT noted that the case was exceptional, including a series of orders for suspension of action, findings of fact pointing to evidence of abuse of authority, retaliatory threats, and a hostile and offensive environment...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that the Ethics Office’s determination that no credible prima facie case of retaliation had been established was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review under Article 2 of the UNDT Statute. UNAT noted that the key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms or conditions of appointment. UNAT found that, in this case, the recommendation of the Ethics Office had no legal...