Notable Cases

Notable international civil service cases handled by the Law Offices run the gamut, from benefits to staff discipline. The Law Offices often undertakes complex, first-instance litigation, with groundbreaking results.

The Law Offices is known as an aggressive litigation firm, but the Law Offices also settles many cases, often at a preliminary stage. In addition, the Law Offices routinely advises clients on all manner of international civil service career issues, including at the highest executive levels.

The Law Offices has litigated before the AfDBAT, IMFAT, IsDBGAT, OASAT, PAHO and WBAT, among other international fora. To discuss your individual situation in any international organization, please contact Mr. Hansen at inquiry@peterhansenlaw.com

AfDBAT – African Development Bank Administrative Tribunal

R.A., AfDBAT Judgment No. 173 In probation case brought by Chief Economist and Vice President, succeeded in having presidential decision not to convert applicant’s appointment adjudged “unlawful on the basis of procedural irregularities.” Nine (9) months of salary awarded, plus a significant costs award. Read More Read More

IMFAT – International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal

“YY”, IMFAT Judgment 2025-5 (Merits) In complex, first-instance case involving Fund retiree and employee of IMF Member State, established precedent of retiree’s right to receive due process after revocation of entry badge and placement of entry flag. Substantial monetary relief and full costs awarded. IMFAT held that “[a]ssuming culpability of a former staff member before he has had an opportunity to respond defeats the purpose of due process.” IMFAT defined due process in this case as a “meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against him.” IMFAT held that Fund had “maintained [the entry ban] absent a review of all relevant evidence by an objective decision-maker for the purpose of determining the true nature of the facts to reach a well-founded decision as to whether the ban should be maintained.” IMFAT held that “[i]mportantly, resolution of Applicant’s chief complaint is of significance not only for Applicant’s case but for the institution as a Read More Read More