2011-Ģ��ƵAT-116

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that, as a consequence of paragraph 11 of the Inter-Organisation Agreement, the Ģ��Ƶ, through Ģ��ƵAMID, undertook to extend the protection of its system of administration of justice to the Appellant in respect of administrative decisions taken by Ģ��ƵAMID during the term of the Loan Agreement. Ģ��ƵAT noted that under this provision, the Appellant could only appeal against the administrative decisions of WFP before ILOAT. Ģ��ƵAT held that, without access to the administration of justice system within the Ģ��Ƶ, the Appellant would have no right to an effective remedy from the competent tribunal in respect of administrative decisions taken by Ģ��ƵAMID and that this would be a denial of justice. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred on a question of law in finding that the Appellant did not have standing to contest the administrative decision of Ģ��ƵAMID before Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT allowed the appeal, vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment and remanded the case to Ģ��ƵDT for a hearing on the merits.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decisions not to treat him as a staff member while he was on loan from WFP to Ģ��ƵAMID and not to appoint him to a post for which he had applied. Ģ��ƵDT found that, under the Inter-Organisation Agreement, the Applicant had no contractual relationship with Ģ��ƵAMID and therefore he could only contest the decision before the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation (ILOAT), the appropriate appeals body established by WFP, as Ģ��ƵDT had no jurisdiction. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant, a staff member of WFP who services with Ģ��ƵAMID under a reimbursable loan agreement, did not have legal standing ratione personae to challenge the non-appointment decision. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Left deliberately blank

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Iskandar

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement