2015-Ģ��ƵAT-578

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT was correct to reject the Appellant��s application and held that the appeal had no merit. Ģ��ƵAT held that ,for various reasons, Ģ��ƵDT erred in not finding that the whole of the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not decide the question of whether an investigation ought to be conducted, but rather passed it into the hands of Ģ��Ƶ-Habitat. Ģ��ƵAT held that this preliminary step of referral was not, of itself, capable of producing direct legal consequences affecting the Appellant��s terms of conditions of appointment and was thus not an appealable administrative decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to show that Ģ��ƵDT committed any error warranting a reversal of its decision to reject the application. Ģ��ƵAT opined that the application to Ģ��ƵDT was not receivable ratione materiae in toto; however, since Ģ��ƵDT arrived at the correct outcome of the case, Ģ��ƵAT held there was no reason to interfere with the decision. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decisions not to launch an investigation into misconduct and prohibited activities, not to provide him with the requisite information, and to provide misleading information. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

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 or conditions of appointment.

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

Staedtler

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement