¹ú²úAV

2011-UNAT-186

2011-UNAT-186, Oge

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that the Appellant’s claims regarding the termination of his appointment and the procedures that resulted in the termination could not be received since UNAT did not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT held that UNDT had committed no error in law by considering that the participation of the civil servant and his counsel in the hearing by video conference would not have violated the Appellant's rights of defence. UNAT held that, although the letter dated November 8, 2005, contained a sentence that could imply that, if the JDC requested the Applicant's appearance, the Applicant's request for travel expenses could be considered, this letter also insisted on the availability of videoconferencing equipment and could not be considered as providing the Appellant with precise assurances on the reimbursement of his travel expenses. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his appointment without notice on the grounds of serious misconduct. The former Administrative Tribunal of the United Nations issued a judgment rejecting the application. During the course of the process, the Applicant requested reimbursement of the travel expenses he incurred in travelling with his counsel from New York to Geneva where the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC) held a hearing in November 2005 on charges against him. The Secretary-General rejected the request. The Applicant filed an appeal with the Former Administrative Tribunal of the UN, which was later transferred to UNDT. UNDT issued judgment No. UNDT/2010/009 rejecting the application. The Applicant appealed this last decision on the reimbursement issue and also presented contentions against the procedure before the JDC and the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal.

Legal Principle(s)

UNAT has no jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal or to reverse the final judgment of that Tribunal. The right to claim the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any public servant who finds himself in a situation in which it appears that the Administration, by making promises or giving specific assurances, has given rise to justified expectations on his part.

Outcome
Appeal dismissed on merits

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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
Oge
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type