Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with the General Assembly¡¯s resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member.
Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with General Assembly resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member. The applicant¡¯s references to provisions of the Charter of the United Nations are without merit in this respect.
In its Judgment 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-029, El-Khatib, the Appeals Tribunal upheld the jurisprudence of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal whereby only circumstances beyond the applicant¡¯s control that prevented him from timely pursuit of his appeal can be regarded as exceptional. The fact that the applicant believed at first that the contested decision was lawful is not an exceptional circumstance, the more so as he had the possibility to obtain information on the applicable rules from the Administration. In El-Khatib, the Appeals Tribunal further recalled that ¡°candidates for a public post are...
The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment: The Applicant failed to comply with the two-month deadline stipulated in former staff rule 111.2(a) as he was formally notified of the non-renewal of his appointment on 4 February 2004 but did not request administrative review of the decision until 27 June 2008. Further, he failed to establish any ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± that prevented him from filing his application in a timely manner. The decision not to reimburse the Applicant for the travel costs he incurred as a result of his participation in the OIOS investigation: In...
The recommendations made by the Chief, SSS, are not administrative decisions that can be contested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in accordance with article 2 of its Statute. They are not administrative decisions within the ruling in Andronov by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the recent jurisprudence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The contested recommendations are preliminary steps in the selection process in accordance with ST/AI/1999/8. The applicant had the right to contest his non-selection for a post but not a preliminary step in such process which is not an administrative decision. Outcome: The application was rejected.
[Case Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/GVA/2009/33] The APPC omission to inform the applicant that his supervisor had sent a letter to it concerning his employment and to share its content with him does not constitute an administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 (a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. It thus falls out of the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s contract was already taken at that point. Hence, the letter to the APPC was merely internal communication; at the highest, it could be regarded as one step in a complexe procedure. [Case Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/GVA/2009/40] The...
The statement of the Executive Director is not an administrative decision that can be contested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in accordance with article 2 of its Statute. It is not an administrative decision within the meaning of the ruling in Andronov by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Indeed, the applicant did not contest the non-renewal of his appointment but a statement by the Executive Director. This statement is a simple opinion, not an administrative decision that could have affected the applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. By the time the statement was published, the applicant was already aware of the non-renewal of his...
Since the applicant was not a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOV when the contested decision was taken, the decision to bar him from access to the VIC did not affect and could not have affected his terms of appointment. The decision could be contested neither before the JAB nor before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.
[Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/GVA/2009/63 ]Contrary to what he contends, the applicant was not prevented from undertaking the separation procedures before the separation memorandum was issued. He was notified of the non-renewal of his contract nearly two months before his effective separation. Hence, the argument that the late issuance of the separation memorandum created such a situation that he was bound to work beyond the date of expiration of his appointment does not stand. The Organization offered him a reasonable chance to finalize the different separation formalities, both during the last two months of service...
Jurisdiction of Tribunal: Although the Administration released the moneys to the applicant, when the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is properly engaged, the mere fact that the Administration ¡°corrects¡± the decision in question does not end the matter. The applicant is still entitled to seek a determination that the decision is unlawful and an award of compensation. Legality of withholding entitlements: The test is not guilt of the staff member but merely ¡°reason to believe¡± that they may have been grossly negligent, causing loss. This is an undemanding test, amongst other things satisfied even...
