The application was not receivable because the Applicant was a former staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIDO. While the Applicant had no locus standi before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, his case would have been properly filed either with ILOAT or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.
Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that as there is no sufficient nexus between her non-selection to the advertised post and the terms of her previous appointment, the application is rejected as irreceivable ratione personae. Sufficient nexus (receivability ratione personae): A former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose, partly arose, or flowed from his or her employment. There must be a sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned decision. In the absence of any provisions giving rights to...
Receivability before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB. As follows from art. 12 read together with art. 14(b)(ii) of ST/AI/149/Rev.4, for a compensation claim for damage to be receivable before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB, the relevant staff member is required (¡°shall¡±) to take the following mandatory and cumulative actions, setting forth in detail all relevant circumstances to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB: (a) to notify the United Nations authorities and the local police about the incident as soon as possible; (b) to submit all pertinent evidence; (c) in case the staff member holds valid personal insurance at the date of the incident, to take all the...
The Tribunal is of the view that in light of the oral evidence presented to the factfinding panel by the FRO and SRO, instead of them following the recommendations of the second rebuttal panel to initiate and provide real support to the Applicant at every stage of the process, they continued their negative behavior towards the Applicant and they did not temporarily rotate/assign him to another position in a different Unit for the following six months (up to one year starting from 19 March 2014), and to allow for the continuation of his third probationary year. The Tribunal concludes that the...
The Tribunal held that the facts arose from the Applicant¡¯s former employment relationship with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application to be receivable.
Given that the Tribunal already adjudicated the Applicant¡¯s claim, finding it not receivable ratione personae for lack of standing, the present application is not receivable. The Secretary-General¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not an appealable administrative decision.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not established that she fit in any of the three categories enunciated in the Statute. She could not sue as a staff member because she was not, and she could not sue as a former staff member because the claim had no relation to her contractual status. The Tribunal having found that the Applicant was not the decedent¡¯s widow, she was not entitled to the benefits in any capacity. The Applicant had no standing ratione personae.
The present matter can be determined on a priority basis without first transmitting a copy of the application to the Respondent for a reply as provided for in art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure. There is no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment and the contested decision. Accordingly, the Applicant does not have standing and the application is not receivable ratione personae. Having filed the application pending the response of the management evaluation and prior to the expiry of the relevant response period, the Tribunal is not competent to hear the matter at issue. The...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant did not assert any right acquired in terms of his previous contract of employment with the Organization. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment and the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant did not have standing and that the application was not receivable ratione personae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.
