2010-Ģ��ƵAT-058

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered whether the impugned decision was a contestable administrative decision. Ģ��ƵAT noted that what constitutes an administrative decision will depend on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that the requirement for Ģ��Ƶ Office at Nairobi (Ģ��ƵON) staff members to possess MIP cards or a Grounds Pass in order to access medical services on credit was for the overall effective administration of the Organisation��s staff medical insurance plan. Ģ��ƵAT held that this requirement was of general application to all staff and could not be deemed to affect the terms of appointment or contract of employment of any one staff member. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not provide any cogent arguments to demonstrate that the administrative instructions infringed the terms of his appointment or his contract of employment. Ģ��ƵAT concurred with Ģ��ƵDT that there was no administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT also affirmed the award of costs against the Appellant for abuse of process. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant requested a review of the decision to instruct hospitals in Kenya not to provide any medical services to any staff member who produced an expired Medical Insurance Plan (MIP) card and Grounds Pass. Ģ��ƵDT held that there was no administrative decision taken by the administration within the meaning of Article 2 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the application and ordered the Applicant to pay costs, having found that he made abuse of process of the Tribunal.

Legal Principle(s)

What constitutes an administrative decision will depend on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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.

Applicants/Appellants

Andati-Amwayi

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement