Ģ��ƵDT/2025/016

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae as (1) the record indicates that the Applicant did not submit a request for request for management evaluation to the Management Advice and Evaluation Section as required under staff rule 11.2; and (2) the contested decision had no direct effect on the Applicant, no external legal effect, nor any adverse impact on the Applicant��s contractual employment rights.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant, a former staff member, filed an application challenging the decision of the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources (��ASG/OHR��), Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (��DMSPC��) not to initiate an investigation and close the Applicant��s complaint alleging ��[l]ong-term harassment, abuse of authority, humiliation, and retaliation suffered during the last four years of [his] career [2018 to 2022]��.

Legal Principle(s)

It is the established jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the Dispute Tribunal has the authority to satisfy itself that an application is receivable under art. 8 of its Statute (see, for instance, O��Neill 2011-Ģ��ƵAT-182, as affirmed in AAX 2024-Ģ��ƵAT-1504). The Appeals Tribunal has also held that the Dispute Tribunal may consider the receivability of an application as a preliminary matter before reviewing the merits of the case (see, for instance, Pellet 2010-Ģ��ƵAT-073). The Tribunal does not have power to waive the deadlines for the filing of requests for management evaluation or to make any exception to it (see, for instance, Costa 2010-Ģ��ƵAT-036). A contested decision is not a reviewable administrative decision under O��Brien 2023-Ģ��ƵAT-1313 because it did not produce a direct effect on the Applicant, did not have external legal effect, and did not directly or adversely impact the Applicant��s contractual employment rights.

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

Fernando Salon

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement