2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-655

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2015/100, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had correctly found that a 罌厭弝ⅰRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the 罌厭弝ⅰ Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, 罌厭弝ⅰAT reiterated that 罌厭弝ⅰAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant had not claimed on appeal that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in issuing the orders. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held, therefore, that the appeals of Orders Nos. 319. 320 and 400 were not receivable ratione materiae. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal against judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2015/100 and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment on receivability. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeals against Orders Nos. 319 (NBI/2015), 320 (NBI/2015), and 400 (NBI/2015) as not receivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision that disqualified his candidacy to posts in the 罌厭弝ⅰ. 罌厭弝ⅰDT issued judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2015/100 dismissing the application as non-receivable since the Applicant was a 罌厭弝ⅰRWA staff member and was not challenging an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2. 1(a) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute. The Applicant appealed this judgment on receivability. The Applicant further filed two applications for suspension of action pending management evaluation. Each application challenged a decision by the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) to disqualify the Applicant as a candidate for a job opening in the 罌厭弝ⅰ. 罌厭弝ⅰDT issued Order Nos. 319 and 320 (NVBI/215) dismissing the applications as non-receivable ratione personae. The Applicant appealed both orders. The Applicant filed another application before 罌厭弝ⅰDT for suspension of action pending management evaluation of a decision by OHRM to disqualify his application for the position of Director, Documentation Division, D-2, Department for General Assembly and Conference Management. In Order No. 400 (NBI/2015), 罌厭弝ⅰDT dismissed this application on the same grounds as the previous applications for suspension of action. 罌厭弝ⅰDT put ※on notice§ that the costs under Article 10. 6 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute could be awarded against the Applicant if he were to bring another, similar, application in the future. The Applicant appealed this last decision as well.

Legal Principle(s)

A 罌厭弝ⅰRWA staff member does not fulfill the requirements of Article 3 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute. The general principle underlying the right to appeal under Article 2. 1 of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute is that only appeals against final judgments will be receivable.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits; 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 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

Elhabil

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal