2015-罌厭弝ⅰAT-542

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2014/061. On the Appellant＊s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant＊s motion requesting 罌厭弝ⅰAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, 罌厭弝ⅰAT denied the motion. On the Appellant＊s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), 罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did not approach the requisite threshold for 罌厭弝ⅰAT to interfere with the case management of 罌厭弝ⅰDT and she did not advance any persuasive argument that 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its jurisdiction or erred in matters of law or procedure or manifestly in fact in relation to the Order. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT properly found that the non-selection decisions for two posts were receivable. On the Appellant＊s challenge to the performance rebuttal process, 罌厭弝ⅰAT agreed with 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s rejection of this complaint as premature, noting that processes must be allowed to run their proper course before being challenged before the 罌厭弝ⅰDT or 罌厭弝ⅰAT. Noting the numerous motions the Appellant had brought regarding matters were outside the scope of the appeal, 罌厭弝ⅰAT opined that the Appellant＊s actions verged on an abuse of the appeal process. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that the Appellant had not challenged the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s finding that the Rebuttal Policy was not an administrative decision. On the issue of blocking emails and access to 罌厭弝ⅰ City, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, having regard to the overall context of the present case, such issues could not be summarily determined solely as a question of law without 罌厭弝ⅰDT embarking upon an assessment of the factual matrix which gave rise to the impugned decision and accordingly, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred procedurally, such as to affect the decision in the cases. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that none of the other arguments put forward by the Appellant satisfied the requirements of Article 2(1) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the appeal succeeded in part. 罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s rejection of the Appellant＊s complaints regarding the two blocking decisions and remanded those issues to 罌厭弝ⅰDT for de novo consideration.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested: the blocking of her emails; the blocking of her access to the complex of 罌厭弝ⅰ City; her non-selection for two posts; the 罌厭弝ⅰFPA＊s failure to conduct or follow-up on her performance rebuttal process; and the performance rebuttal policy itself. By Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) 罌厭弝ⅰDT invited the Secretary-General to respond to a motion filed by the Applicant requesting leave to provide additional evidence and comment on the Secretary-General＊s reply to the 罌厭弝ⅰDT application. In judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2014/061, 罌厭弝ⅰDT, limiting itself to receivability issues, found in favour of the Applicant in part, i. e. that her challenges to her non-selection for the two posts in Procurement Services Branch were receivable and dismissed the remainder of her application.

Legal Principle(s)

Processes must be allowed to run their proper course before being challenged before 罌厭弝ⅰDT or 罌厭弝ⅰAT.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT 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

Nielsen

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement