2026-Ģ��ƵAT-1665

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Fogarty because she was a former staff member of the IMO and the decision that she challenged, the IMO��s failure to investigate the Director of Administration, did not impact the terms of her former employment.The Ģ��ƵAT noted that it had already determined in Judgment No. 2026-Ģ��ƵAT-1620 that there was no negative consequence to Ms. Fogarty from the conduct that she complained of by the Director of Administration, with respect to Ms. Fogarty��s claim to Appendix D benefits. Other than the Appendix D claim, which was adjudicated by the Ģ��ƵAT, Ms. Fogarty is not directly affected by whether the IMO investigates the Director of Administration.

The Ģ��ƵAT also held that under the Special Agreement between the Ģ��Ƶ and the IMO there needs to be a decision of the neutral first instance process in order to confer jurisdiction on the Appeals Tribunal. In this case, Ms. Fogarty conceded that there was no decision by the IMO Staff Appeals Board.

In obiter dicta, the Ģ��ƵAT observed that whether there is reviewable administrative decision (or another jurisdictional issue) is not for the Administration to decide but for the Staff Appeals Board. Otherwise, the Administration becomes a gatekeeper of appeals potentially preventing staff member��s full access to the appeal process. However, this was not dispositive of the appeal, which was decided based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Ģ��ƵAT found that Ms. Fogarty had sought to relitigate and reargue matters that have either been finally concluded or were inherently non-appealable, by recasting them in new procedural formulations. Her repeated initiation of overlapping proceedings arising from the same facts notwithstanding prior adjudications and jurisdictional limits undermined the finality of the internal justice system. The Ģ��ƵAT held that Ms. Fogarty��s continued attempts to re-litigate the same matter justified an award of costs. The Ģ��ƵAT held that Ms. Fogarty was liable for the costs of the appeal in Case No. 2026-2198, which was duplicative of Case No. 2026-2108, and which Ms. Fogarty filed after she had the benefit of Judgment No. 2026-Ģ��ƵAT-1620, and after she already knew that the Ģ��ƵAT would hear Case No. 2026-2108 in the Ģ��ƵAT��s 2026 Summer Session.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeals and awarded costs in favor of the Secretary-General of the IMO.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) challenges the failure of IMO to convene a Staff Appeals Board to hear an appeal she submitted on 17 October 2025.

The Secretary-General filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as inadmissible and requested that the Ģ��ƵAT decide the receivability of the appeal.

Legal Principle(s)

Receivability is a gateway test that, if successful, enables the Tribunal to review the case on the merits. Receivability is a logical sequence of tests that must normally be satisfied in the following order: ratione personae, ratione materiae, and ratione temporis.

Before a person may be regarded as a former staff member capable of filing an application or appeal there must be a sufficient nexus between the former employment and the contested decision. A sufficient nexus exists when the challenged decision has bearing on an applicant��s former status as a staff member, specifically when it affects his or her prior contractual rights.

The Appeals Tribunal is competent to pass judgment on applications of former staff members of the Organization, but only when the former staff member is directly affected by the contested decision.

The Appeals Tribunal is not a tribunal of first instance. Its jurisdiction is strictly appellate and is engaged only where there exists a prior determination capable of review. This structure forms part of the two-tier system of administration of justice within the United Nations and for organizations that have accepted its jurisdiction.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

Outcome Extra Text

The former IMO staff member was ordered to pay USD 17,738 to the IMO Secretary-General in costs for abuse of process.

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

Margaret Mary Fogarty

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry