2015-Ģ��ƵAT-565

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT allowed the appeal on the grounds that Ģ��ƵDT erred in reaching the merits of the present case in circumstances where it had confirmed by Order that it would only address receivability as a preliminary issue. Ģ��ƵAT held that it disagreed with Ģ��ƵDT on the matter of receivability and that there was no administrative decision capable of being appealed before Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT held that the administrative decision Mr Saffir impugned did not deprive him of his work or affect his function; it was limited to announcing recruitment round to fill three of the 19 positions considered necessary for a restructuring exercise. Ģ��ƵAT held that, in the absence of any direct impact or negative consequences for Mr Saffir or his terms of appointment, it was not appealable by him. Ģ��ƵAT held that, as the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision, this rendered the claim before Ģ��ƵDT moot. Ģ��ƵAT held that it was legally impermissible for Ģ��ƵDT to rule on the merits of the matter and award compensation since, firstly, Ģ��ƵDT lacked jurisdiction and secondly, even if it were an administrative decision, Ģ��ƵDT had determined that the receivability issue would be addressed as a preliminary matter without going into the merits. Ģ��ƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Saffir contested the decision to initiate the recruitment of 19 candidates for the future operation of the Publishing Section without the prior approval and authorisation of the General Assembly. Ģ��ƵDT issued an Order granting a motion for leave to have receivability considered as a preliminary issue. Ģ��ƵDT subsequently found in favour of Mr Saffir and awarded compensation for the anxiety and stress he suffered.

Legal Principle(s)

A reviewable administrative decision is one that has a direct impact and negative consequences on a staff member affecting his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment.

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

Saffir

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement