Ģ��ƵDT/2011/055

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵDT noted that when the facts at issue occurred, the Applicant was neither a staff member, nor a former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute. Ģ��ƵDT accordingly held that the Applicant was not a person having access to Ģ��ƵDT and that it had to declare itself not competent to consider the application. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the application.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application with Ģ��ƵDT contesting the decision to recover from him a partial amount of the Internet costs incurred by the Country Office as a result of the Applicant downloading video and audio files using an office computer.

Legal Principle(s)

Left deliberately blank.

Outcome

Dismissed as not receivable

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

Mialeshka

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement