¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2023/139

UNDT/2023/139, Mouchabek

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant having failed to establish any illegality, procedural irregularity, bad faith or improper motivation in the Respondent’s taking of the decision not to accept her request to withdraw her resignation, the application had to fail.

Had the Respondent not exercised his discretion to reject the Applicant’s request to withdraw her resignation, he would have been compelled to rescind selection decisions already communicated and accepted by three other staff members. This would have constituted a breach of the employment contracts of the three staff members. This breach would have presented adverse legal consequences. Therefore, according to the Respondent, it was prudent to exercise the discretion in favor of not accepting the Applicant’s request to withdraw her resignation, which the Tribunal found reasonable under the circumstances of this case.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contests the “decision to separate [her] on early retirement, despite the withdrawal of her request for early retirementâ€.

Legal Principle(s)

The Tribunal may rescind the impugned decision if satisfied that the exercise of managerial discretionary power was unlawful, unprocedural, or improperly motivated. 

The starting point in the process of judicial review is the recognition that there is a presumption that official functions are regularly performed. The Respondent bears a minimal burden to show that he acted lawfully and procedurally. Once the presumption is discharged, the burden shifts to the Applicant who must rebut it through clear and convincing evidence that the impugned decision is unreasonable or unfair or illegal or procedurally flawed or that it is marred by improper motive.

Outcome
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.