Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly held that the Applicant was not a person having access to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and that it had to declare itself not competent to consider the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.
The preliminary issue at stake was whether the Tribunal had competence ratione personae to examine this application. In this regard, the Tribunal found that, under the relevant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP rules, persons recruited under Service Contract are not staff members. It therefore considered that it did not have competence to adjudicate this case. It also found that the facts had clearly established that the Applicant had actually amicably settled the issue of the non renewal of his contract and received USD 9593 as compensation. The Tribunal therefore considered that the Applicant, who was a party to this...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated several hurdles to the receivability of the present application, including with respect to receivability ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae, although the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found that on the papers filed some of these issues would ordinarily warrant further examination had the application not been manifestly inadmissible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was manifestly inadmissible because the Applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement of submitting a request for management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing an application with...
STL staff members are not United Nations staff members and thus do not have access to the Tribunal.
Locus Standi: The two decisions that the Applicant sought to challenge have no direct link to the Applicant¡¯s own contract of employment. All the substantive issues raised in the claims relate to the terms of employment of Ms. Okuda and Mr. Alvaro-Rivero who are the two individuals with the requisite standing to challenge the decisions concerning their reassignments. Having found that the Applicant lacked the standing to lodge the claims, the Application was held not to be receivable.
The application is struck out as being inadmissible because under the terms of the contract that the Applicant voluntarily entered into she is not a staff member and the rules and regulations of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ do not apply to her. She is employed under a service contract that confer on her rights akin to that of a consultant and the breach of any such rights is to be settled via binding arbitration. Consequently, she does not have standing to bring her claim to the Tribunal. In the alternative, even if the Applicant had standing to bring her claim, it is, in any event, not receivable as she did not...
The Applicant was not qualified to address Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT because, at the time of the disputed facts, she was neither a serving nor former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly disclaimed jurisdiction in this case and dismissed the application.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT examined its competence over the matter and found that it does not have jurisdiction over claims concerning individual contractors/consultants/national experts. As a result, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application by summary judgment without consideration of its merits.
The Tribunal reasoned that when seeking to challenge a policy, it was imperative that an applicant was specific in identifying how that policy had adversely affected him. A broad brush suggestion that a particular policy was discriminatory was not sufficient for purposes of litigation. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not in the bisuness of reviewing policies within the Organization, except where an Applicant clearly demonstrated that a specific decision had been made, which was adverse to his or her interests, in furtherance of that policy.; In light of the above, the Tribunal concluded...
The Tribunal is only competent to hear complaints filed by staff members, former staff members or persons makingclaims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member under article 3 of the Statute. Noting that the Applicant had been working with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON as an independent contractor, the Tribunal held that he was not a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON and as such, he has no standing to come before the Tribunal.
