2016-Ģ��ƵAT-609

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. Ģ��ƵAT agreed with Ģ��ƵRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵRWA judgment: The Applicant filed an application for suspension of action of the non-renewal and recruitment decisions together with a substantive application on the merits. Ģ��ƵDT ordered the suspension of the decisions until the determination of the merits of the case.

Legal Principle(s)

An interlocutory appeal is receivable where Ģ��ƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. This will not be the case in every decision by Ģ��ƵDT concerning its jurisdiction or competence. Articles 13 and 14 of the Ģ��ƵDT Rules of Procedure follow the same logic, though with slightly different wording. They must not be read as amending the Statute, because they merely serve as instrument to implement the Statute (see Article 7.1 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute). Cases of separation following non-renewal constitute a case of appointment and fall under the exclusionary clause of Article 10. 2 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute. In these cases, the reversal of the underlying contested decision results in the issuance of a new appointment reflecting ��expressly or by reference all the terms and conditions of employment�� as provided for in Staff Rule 4.1.

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

Siri

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement