Ãå±±½ûµØ

2015-UNAT-544, Nartey

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General and the cross-appeal of Mr Nartey. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it found the decision to deny Mr Nartey’s request to grant him a lien on his post was an abuse of authority. UNAT held that Mr Nartey did not satisfy his burden to show the impugned decision was based on a retaliatory motive. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it concluded that the impugned decision was retaliatory. UNAT held that UNDT also made factual errors regarding retaliation and these errors resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it inferentially concluded that the decision of the Ethics Office not to receive Mr Nartey’s report of retaliation was in violation of the Order of UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence in considering sua sponte the decision of the Ethics Office. UNAT held that, as the merits of the Ethics Office decision were not properly before UNDT, UNDT erred in fact and law when it found that the Director of the Ethics Office violated the UNDT Order and referred the Director to the Secretary-General for accountability. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded it competence or jurisdiction and erred as a matter of law when it found that D/DAS had created a hostile work environment. UNAT held that there was no basis for the UNDT’s award of compensation or moral damages. UNAT held that there was no merit to Mr Nartey’s cross-appeal in light of its determinations that the awards of compensatory and moral damages were without legal bases. UNAT held that the UNDT’s decision that there was no ground to award costs to Mr Narley was not erroneous. UNAT granted the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment and denied the cross-appeal.

Accountability Referrals: UNAT held that UNDT erred by referring the D/DAS to the Secretary-General for accountability on the grounds of retaliation and harassment. UNAT vacated the UNDT referrals of the Director of the Ethics Office and the D/DAS, UNON to the Secretary-General for accountability. 

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Mr Nartey contested, inter alia, the decision not to grant him a lien on his post while on a mission to UNAMID. UNDT found the decision was an abuse of authority and awarded compensation, including moral damages. UNDT also referred the Director of the Ethics Office and the Director of the Division of Administrative Services (D/DAS) of the United Nations Office Nairobi (UNON) to the Secretary-General for accountability, pursuant to Article 10(8) of the UNDT Statute.

Legal Principle(s)

UNDT has the inherent power to issue orders to protect witnesses who testify before it from retaliation by a party.

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.