¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered Ms Worsley’s appeal and the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal. UNAT held that there was no evidence that OSLA’s decision to not represent Ms Worsley was based on her disability. UNAT noted that Ms Worsley did not show how OSLA’s actions affected her rights or her case, as she was simply repeating arguments that UNDT previously considered in its judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment with regard to its decision that the right of staff members to receive assistance from OSLA does not amount to a right to be represented by OSLA.

Noting that UNDT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. UNAT found no fault with UNDT’s rejection of the Appellant’s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA’s decision were...

Independent status: OSLA enjoys functional or operational independence, in the sense that it does not receive instructions from its hierarchy when providing advice to staff members or representing their interests, while remaining administratively subject to the Secretary-General. Attribution of Independent organs’ acts to the Secretary-General: If article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute designates the Secretary-General as the respondent before the Tribunal, he assumes this role in his capacity as Chief Administrative Officer, and not on account of his personal behaviour. This responsibility is linked...

The Applicant contests OSLA's decisions of 5 November 2013 not to represent him in two of the cases he had at the time pending at the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. It rejected the application on the merits, on the grounds that the decisions constituted a legal exercise of discretion on the part of OSLA, which had provided the Applicant with extensive legal assistance, had carefully considered all the issues and gave valid reasons on why it would not represent the Applicant. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that OSLA...