2014-Ģ��ƵAT-437

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered two appeals by the staff member of Ģ��ƵDT Order Nos. 109 and 110. Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before Ģ��ƵDT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, Ģ��ƵAT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General��s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. Ģ��ƵAT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no statutory authority to reinstate an application withdrawn by an Applicant. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT Orders.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed a first application to contest the decision to fill several P-4 level posts without issuing specific vacancy announcements. The Applicant filed a second application to challenge several ��administrative decisions�� pertaining to his performance assessment process for the periods of 2010 to 2011 and 2011 to 2012. Later, the Applicant filed notices of withdrawal of his two applications. By Order No. 30 (NY/2012) and Order No. 36 (NY/2012), Ģ��ƵDT closed the cases. In two motions the Applicant requested the reinstatement of his applications. By ��Orders on Motions for Reinstatement�� (Order Nos. 109 (NY/2013) and 110 (NY/2013)), Ģ��ƵDT rejected both motions. Ģ��ƵDT stated that its Rules of Procedure only outline three situations in which Ģ��ƵDT, at the request of a party, may reopen a case after its final disposal, namely if this party applies for revision, interpretation, or correction of judgment. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant��s requests were not covered by these articles nor were they otherwise specifically envisioned in the Rules of Procedure.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT and Ģ��ƵAT have no powers beyond those conferred under their respective statutes. There is no statute authorising reinstatement of an application by Ģ��ƵDT or Ģ��ƵAT.

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

Charles

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement