2019-Ģ��ƵAT-970

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

As a preliminary matter, Ģ��ƵAT declined to receive the Appellant��s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before Ģ��ƵDT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, Ģ��ƵAT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. Ģ��ƵAT held that knowledge of the overtime or lack of action on the matter by the Administration, in this case, was not sufficient to constitute an administrative decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in finding the Appellant��s claims regarding overtime were not receivable ratione materiae. Noting that the Appellant did not pursue the internal processes required by the ST/SGB/2008/5, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in finding that the Appellant��s application regarding harassment and abuse of authority was not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The staff member filed an application seeking the official acknowledgement of his overtime and monetary compensation. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed his application on the basis that none of his claims were receivable, primarily because there was no specific, reviewable administrative decision.

Legal Principle(s)

An applicant has the statutory burden to establish that the administrative decision in issue was in non-compliance with the terms of his or her appointment or contract of employment; such a burden cannot be met where an applicant fails to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a specific decision which has a direct and adverse impact on his or her contract rights. In order to be allowed to adduce additional evidence before Ģ��ƵAT, an Applicant must show exceptional circumstances and explain why such evidence could not have been filed before Ģ��ƵDT.

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

Adnan-Tolon

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement