2023-Ģ��ƵAT-1381

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT observed that neither party had raised whether AAQ��s application was receivable before the Ģ��ƵDT. The Ģ��ƵAT nonetheless held that because this was a jurisdictional question, it was obliged to raise the issue itself. The Ģ��ƵAT noted that pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute, the staff member was obliged to identify an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment. Further, pursuant to established case law, the administrative decision must have both a direct and adverse effect on the employment of the staff member. The effect must be an actual past, as opposed to a potential future, effect.

The Ģ��ƵAT accepted that there was an administrative decision refusing AAQ��s request to have their status recognized as female in Umoja, but found this was insufficient. AAQ argued that the Administration��s refusal to recognize their gender identity as female could impact their prospects in selection exercises. However, this scenario was a hypothetical and future possibility. The Ģ��ƵAT held that it could not presume direct negative legal consequences from a selection process that has not occurred. AAQ had also not alleged any actual specific benefit or entitlement that was negatively impacted by the fact that AAQ was not recognized as female.

The Ģ��ƵAT concluded that the Ģ��ƵDT was without jurisdiction to decide the case on the merits because AAQ��s application was unreceivable.

AAQ��s appeal was granted but only to the extent of setting aside the Ģ��ƵDT��s judgment for absence of jurisdiction. The Ģ��ƵDT judgment was reversed.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

In Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2022/129, the Dispute Tribunal dismissed AAQ��s application in which AAQ challenged the Administration��s refusal to change their gender to female in Umoja, based on AAQ��s preferred gender identity, although AAQ was a biological male.

AAQ appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

Appeals Tribunal jurisprudence requires that an administrative decision must have a direct impact and not a future injury to the staff member's terms and conditions of employment.

Potential future and potential adverse consequences of an administrative decision are an insufficient basis for Ģ��ƵDT jurisdiction.

The Appeals Tribunal must consider the jurisdictional issue of the receivability of an application before the Ģ��ƵDT on its own motion, even if the parties have not raised it.

Outcome

Appeal granted

Outcome Extra Text

Appeal granted only to the extent necessary to set aside the Ģ��ƵDT judgment for absence of jurisdiction. Ģ��ƵDT judgment reversed.

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

AAQ

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement