2014-Ģ��ƵAT-481

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, Ģ��ƵAT denied the Appellant��s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, Ģ��ƵAT found that Ģ��ƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant��s applications to suspend action. Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not receivable ratione materiae. With respect to the judgment, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly concluded that the Appellant��s application was not receivable ratione materiae because it challenged a decision that was not an administrative decision subject to review. Ģ��ƵAT recalled that an administrative decision must have a direct impact on a staff member��s terms and conditions of appointment, rather than a future injury. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeals of the judgment and the Orders and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment and orders: The Applicant filed two motions to suspend the General Assembly from making a decision to abolish her post while her second request for management evaluation was pending. Ģ��ƵDT rejected both motions, holding that they were non-receivable.

Legal Principle(s)

Appeals for a suspension of action will only be receivable if Ģ��ƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. The key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member��s terms and conditions of appointment, rather than a future injury.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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

Lee

Entity

Case Number(s)

2014-555

Tribunal

Ģ��ƵAT

Registry

New York

Date of Judgement

17 Oct 2014