2020-Ģ��ƵAT-980

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

As a preliminary matter, Ģ��ƵAT granted the Appellant��s motion to file additional pleadings in the form of submission that Ģ��ƵAT had decided previously that the MICT was a Secretariat entity and was thus precluded from holding to the contrary. On the merits, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant was not eligible for a continuing appointment for three reasons: (1) he did not work for the Secretariat; (2) the MICT had no authority to grant a continuing appointment; and (3) he was not in active service in the Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment throughout the period of consideration. On consideration of his additional pleadings, Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no previous decision by Ģ��ƵAT finding that the MICT was a Secretariat entity. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Administration was entitled to withdraw its erroneous notification. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT was correct to dismiss the Appellant��s second application as not receivable as the two applications concerned the same subject matter and the same cause of action between the same parties. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the refusal by MICT to grant him a continuing appointment, despite an earlier notification from OHRM that he had been granted a continuing appointment in the Ģ��Ƶ Secretariat. The Applicant filed two separate applications which were consolidated. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the second application as not receivable on the basis that the Applicant was contesting the same decision as contested in the first application. Ģ��ƵDT found that the decision not to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment was lawful and dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

A prior factual finding of Ģ��ƵAT resulting in issue preclusion could form the exceptional circumstances required to justify the granting of a motion to file additional pleadings. Where the Administration finds that it has made an unlawful or mistaken decision, it is entitled to take action to remedy the error.

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

Colati

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement