2017-Ģ��ƵAT-806

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT properly dismissed the Appellant��s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. Ģ��ƵAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. Ģ��ƵAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave was therefore not receivable ratione materiae. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no legal basis for the Appellant to remain on administrative leave. Ģ��ƵAT noted that, even if there was an improper or unreasonable motive behind the decision to allow the contract to expire, the appeal was time-barred. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly found that the Appellant had failed to provide evidence of any reassurance of reassignment to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, however, in the final analysis, these issues made no difference because his challenge to the decision of non-reassignment was time-barred. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to cancel his administrative leave without completing the investigation that had been initiated against him; the alleged refusal to abide by the terms of his temporary reassignment to Sudan; and the decision not to renew his contract. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application in its entirety.

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 and conditions of appointment. A decision to terminate administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action has no adverse legal consequences or impact and is accordingly not an administrative decision.

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

Maloof

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement