2019-Ģ��ƵAT-969

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration��s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous wrongful occurrence permitting an automatic waiver of the applicable time limits was unsustainable. Ģ��ƵAT held that the alleged existence of a continuous wrong cannot of itself be perceived as an implied administrative decision conferring jurisdiction. Ģ��ƵAT held that before it can be found that there was an implied administrative decision there must be evidence that the continuous wrong was challenged by a specific request to desist and a refusal or failure by the Administration to desist or an implied decision in the form of a failure to take any decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that the failure to properly staff the section was not an implied administrative decision, as it did not take the form of an administrative decision in non-compliance with the staff member��s terms of appointment and it was not an individual decision with direct legal consequences for the staff member. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not have jurisdiction ratione materiae in relation to the issue of overtime. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly concluded that the Appellant��s claims of abuse and harassment in terms of ST/SGB/2008/5 were not receivable as Ģ��ƵDT had no jurisdiction to conduct ab initio an investigation of a harassment complaint. Ģ��ƵAT further noted that the Appellant had not made any allegations of harassment or abuse of authority in his request for management evaluation. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The staff member alleged that the Administration had violated Staff Rule 3. 11 and the Ģ��Ƶ Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (Ģ��ƵFICYP) administrative circular governing compensation for overtime. He also alleged harassment and abuse of authority by his supervisors and the failure to complete his performance evaluation. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

Legal Principle(s)

A staff member is required to clearly identify the administrative decision which is contested. Before it can be found that there was an implied administrative decision, there must be evidence that the continuous wrong was challenged by a specific request to desist and a refusal or failure by the Administration to desist or an implied decision in the form of a failure to take any decision. Ģ��ƵDT does not have the jurisdiction to conduct ab initio an investigation of a harassment complaint.

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

Argyrou

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement