�山����

The applicability of the duty of care to International Organizations had already been addressed in the earliest years of the United Nations: in its Resolution 258/III of December 3, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly raised “with greater urgency … the question of the arrangements to be made by the United Nations with a view of ensuring to its agents the fullest measure of protection”. The duty of care was formally addressed in ST/SGB/2009/7 (Staff Rules - Staff Regulations of the United Nations and provisional Staff Rules), by requiring the Secretary-General to ensure, having regard to the circumstances, that all necessary safety and security arrangements be made for staff carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to them. Since this duty of care is part of the Applicant’s terms of appointment, the decision to disclose the BOI report to the German authorities constitutes an administrative decision to the extent that it may impact on the Applicant’s right to safety and security arising from the Organization’s duty of care. In accordance with the provisions of the Convention, it is clear for the Tribunal that the BOI report and its annexes belong to the United Nations and are protected by the Organization’s privileges and immunities, which include the inviolability of its archives. For the purpose of the present case, the Organization, in exercising that discretion, further had to weigh its duty to cooperate under the Convention against other factors, including its duty of care vis-à-vis the Applicant. Within the realm of judicial control of discretionary decisions, the Tribunal is satisfied that the disclosure of the BOI report was the result of a proper assessment undertaken by the Organization, and did not violate its duty of care towards the Applicant. While the Organization may or should have been aware that under the applicable law the BOI report would become part of a Court case file, it underlined its confidential nature in an attempt to minimize any further disclosure of it, and thus any potential negative impact on the Applicant. This constitutes sound management by the Organization in the exercise of its discretion. The Tribunal first notes that in the hierarchy of norms, the Convention takes precedence over the BOIs policy and the SOPs on BOIs. The Tribunal has concluded that the Organization’s exercise of discretion in sharing the BOI report with the German authorities was done in full accordance with the Convention, and respecting the Organization’s duty of care towards the Applicant. The BOIs policy and SOPs on BOIs are, therefore, tools to guide the Administration in establishing lessons learned for future missions. Failure to comply with them could probably lead to managerial responsibility. However, the purpose of these policy documents is not to establish rights for individual staff members, which would become part of their terms of appointment in addition to the duty of care as established through the Staff Regulations and Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal notes that any alleged violation of the internal BOIs policy or the SOPs on BOIs is not relevant for its finding that the decision to share the BOI report was a legal exercise of administrative discretion, which did not violate the Applicant’s terms of appointment. In the case at hand, there is no legal basis obliging the Organization to engage in previous consultations with the Applicant before the release of the BOI report. The legal obligation is limited to the duty of care, which, as analysed above, was duly respected by the Organization. Since the Tribunal found that the decision to release the BOI report to the German authorities constitutes a lawful exercise of administrative discretion, which did not violate the Applicant’s terms of appointment, it did not address the question of whether under its Statute it has the power to grant the requested remedies. Any request for remedies fails already on account of the finding of lawfulness of the contested decision. The jurisprudence of the United Nations formal internal justice system has also clarified that the Organization has a duty of care towards its staff members (Carlton Order No. 262 (NY/2014) and Gatti et al. (Order No. 126 (NY/2013) see also McKay, UNDT/2012/018, affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in McKay 2013-UNAT-287): Section 21 of the Convention stipulates that “[t]he United Nations shall cooperate at all times with the appropriate authorities of Member [States] to facilitate the proper administration of justice, secure the observance of police regulations and prevent the occurrence of any abuse in connection with the privileges, immunities and facilities mentioned in [Article V of the Convention]”. This constitutes a leading legal principle that is binding on the Organization: to duly cooperate with Member States to facilitate justice and law enforcement. However, the Tribunal notes that the extent and scope of that duty to cooperate under the Convention is limited by several other principles: first and foremost, the Organization enjoys privileges and immunities, which extend to its assets and archives. It is a commonly accepted principle of international law that International Organizations have a duty of care towards their staff members. The duty of care has a multidimensional nature and can have different meanings depending on the context in which it is applied. The Organization’s duty of care towards its staff implies, first and foremost, that it has to provide a healthy and safe working environment for and to ensure the safety of its staff. That may encompass a duty to protect its staff against outside risks, e.g. when divulging information, including personal data, that may impact on the safety and security of the staff member or his immediate family.