UNDT/2012/092

UNDT/2012/092, Wasserstrom

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNDT found that, given the burden of proof on the Administration to establish by “clear and convincing evidence” that there is no retaliation pursuant to sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2005/21, and given some of the unresolved questions arising from the OIOS investigation report and its annexes, any reasonable reviewer would have examined the annexes, which the Ethics Office did not. Nor did the Ethics Office sent the report back to OIOS for further investigations and/or clarification. Since the Ethics Office did neither, the Respondent was found liable for the Ethics Office’s failures and/or omissions.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant appealed the Ethics Office’s determination that he had not been retaliated against.

Legal Principle(s)

The judicial review of a retaliation decision of the Ethics Office: The Tribunal held that the duty of the Ethics Office is not simply to rubberstamp an investigation report and recommendations by OIOS. The Tribunal is to consider whether any reasonable reviewer properly directing her/himself to the questions of fact and law of the investigation report and recommendations would have seen it as part of their duty to examine the full report, including its annexes, and/or requested OIOS to make further enquires.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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

Wasserstrom

Entity

UNMIK

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NY/2009/044/JAB

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

New York