2015-UNAT-509

2015-UNAT-509, Nguyen-Kropp & Postica

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against three judgments (judgment Nos. UNDT/2013/028, UNDT/2013/029 and UNDT/2013/076). UNAT held that, generally speaking, appeals against a decision to initiate an investigation are not receivable as such a decision is preliminary in nature and does not, at that stage, affect the legal rights of the staff member. UNAT held that initiating an investigation is merely a step in the investigative process and it is not an administrative decision that UNDT is competent to review. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law and exceeded its competence in accepting the applications as receivable. UNAT allowed the appeals and vacated judgment Nos. UNDT/2013/028, UNDT/2013/029 and UNDT/2013/176.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicants contested the decisions to conduct an investigation into their alleged misconduct. In three judgments, UNDT found the applications were receivable and found for the Applicants, awarding compensation for economic loss in the form of legal costs and for moral damages.

Legal Principle(s)

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. Appeals against a decision to initiate an investigation are not receivable as such a decision is preliminary in nature and does not, at that stage, affect the legal rights of a staff member. Tribunals should not interfere with matters that fall within the Administration’s prerogatives, including its lawful internal processes, and the Administration must be left to conduct these processes in full and to finality.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Nguyen-Kropp & Postica

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry Location :