Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The documents on file, and in particular the notice of dismissal, show that the Applicant was employed by a private company. Other than the Applicant¡¯s unsupported statement in his personal details form when filing his submissions that his Office of employment was ¡°ITC¡±, there is no evidence on record showing that he has any contractual relationship with the United Nations within the meaning of art. 3 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. As such, the Applicant has no locus standi before this Tribunal.
Moreover, while the Applicant is contesting a disciplinary measure, it was imposed neither by the Secretary-General of the United Nations under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, nor by a specialized agency within the meaning of art. 2.5 of Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Instead, the evidence on record shows that the disciplinary measure at issue was imposed on the Applicant by a private entity.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not competent to examine the present application.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Through filings made before this Tribunal, the Applicant seems to contest his summary dismissal for misconduct following a disciplinary hearing.
Legal Principle(s)
The Tribunal has the competence to review an application¡¯s receivability even if the parties do not raise the issue because ¡°it constitutes a matter of law and the Statute prevents the [Tribunal] from receiving a case which is actually non-receivable¡± (see Christensen 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-335, para. 21).