Receivability ratione personae ¨C Applying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s decisions in Gharemani and Sims, the Tribunal holds that the Application is not receivable ratione personae because the contested decision has no bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member.
Receivability ratione personae ¨C Applying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s decision in Gabaldon, the Tribunal holds that having undertaken, even still imperfectly, to conclude a contract for the recruitment of a person as a staff member, the Organization should be regarded as intending for this person to benefit from the protection of the laws of the United Nations and, thus, from its system of administration of justice and, for this purpose only, the person in question should be regarded as a staff member.
While in her application she refers to a broad spectrum of decisions, only one of them¡ªthe decision not to grant her ASHI¡ªwas the subject of a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal found, accordingly, that the application with respect to issues which were not previously subjected to management evaluation was not receivable, ratione materiae. With respect to the denial of ASHI, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had been first notified of the contested decision on 1 May 2014. Due to ongoing discussions, the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation only on 18 July 2014...
The Tribunal noted that, in fact, the selection procedure for the post had never been completed: a revised vacancy announcement (VA) for the same post was later re-advertised and the recruitment process was still pending. The Tribunal considered that the second VA was a continuation of the same selection process, for which a final decision had still to be made, hence the application was rejected as irreceivable as it was premature.
The Tribunal found that a final decision had been taken on 27 September 2013 by the Registrar and notified to the Applicant on 14 October 2013 and that by filing a request for management evaluation only on 23 June 2014, the application was irreceivable, ratione materiae.
The Applicant failed to identify the administrative decision she is contesting and from the Tribunal¡¯s examination of the documents received, it is not possible to clearly define the administrative decision that she wishes to contest. Furthermore, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of an administrative decision, if any. It follows that the present application is not receivable, ratione materiae, and the Tribunal is not competent to adjudicate the matter. The above is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply, and...
Findings of fact by the Appeals Tribunal ¨C As a matter of general principle, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to question a finding of fact or a ruling on the law as set down by the Appeals Tribunal. Receivability ¨C A staff member who raises a credible claim which needs to be tested ought not to be shut out at a preliminary stage. There is a difference between a claim that is clearly not receivable because it does not challenge an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1 and a claim which on the face of it raises an apparently credible challenge that a decision of general...
The Applicant, as a former Service Contractor, does not have standing to submit an application to the Tribunal pursuant to article 2.1 and 3.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.
Appeals against Ethics Office: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Appeals Tribunal has consistently held that the role of the Ethics Office under ST/SGB/2005/21 is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and that such recommendations do not in themselves affect terms of appointment of staff members. the review made by the Ethics Office is not a substitute to the internal system of justice, which includes the Dispute Tribunal. Therefore, filing of a complaint with the Ethics Office does not replace the requirements of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, its Rules of Procedures, and the Staff Rules. Any...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s substantive post has not existed for the past two years and that the Applicant has temporarily encumbered vacant posts to which he was not recruited since then, it is evidently too late in the day to challenge the abolition of his post which took place in 2013. General Assembly Resolutions - To the extent that the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post was that of the GA, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review the said decision.
