2020-Ģ��ƵAT-986

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

On the termination decision, Ģ��ƵAT affirmed Ģ��ƵDT��s decision that an individual contracted under an ICA was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT referred the matter of the lack of judicial recourse for individual contractors to the attention of the President of the General Assembly for consideration and possible action. On the decision to recover monies, Ģ��ƵAT noted that, while management evaluation was not required to appeal the imposition of a disciplinary measure, such an argument was not valid in this case because the recovery of monies was not a disciplinary measure, but rather an administrative decision for which management evaluation was a mandatory first step. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to comply with the requirement to request management evaluation before filing his application with Ģ��ƵDT and Ģ��ƵDT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction in not considering his application. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant, a former Ģ��ƵDP staff member, contested both the decision by Ģ��ƵOPS to terminate his individual contractor agreement (ICA) and the decision of Ģ��ƵDP to recover money from him. On the termination decision, Ģ��ƵDT found that his application was not receivable as he was not a staff member of Ģ��ƵOPS or any other entity of the Organisation and therefore had no locus standi before Ģ��ƵDT. On the decision to recover money, Ģ��ƵDT found that his application was also not receivable, because he, as a former Ģ��ƵDP staff member, had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision.

Legal Principle(s)

Neither Ģ��ƵDT nor Ģ��ƵAT has jurisdiction to waive deadlines for the filing of requests for management evaluation, or to grant any exceptions to this requirement.

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

Sawenja

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement