Legitimate interest in the outcome of the case: Given that an Applicant has no option of returning to the post he formerly encumbered, any decision regarding the classification of that post cannot impact his rights. There exists no direct legal consequence between any classification decision and his terms of appointment; therefore the application is not receivable.
The Tribunal noted that for an application to be receivable, the decision that is being challenged has to be an “administrative decision” under the provisions of the Tribunal’s Statute. In the present case, the abolition of the post at stake had not yet been formally approved by the United Nations General Assembly. The Tribunal found that the mere proposal to abolish a post does not constitute an “administrative decision”, because it does not produce “direct legal consequences”. Therefore, and since the Applicant did not challenge an administrative decision, the Tribunal decided that her...
As regards the Applicant’s request for rescission of the contested decision, the Tribunal found that it was irreceivable insofar as decisions to extend a staff member’s appointment are not decisions adversely affecting a staff member and thus are not subject to appeal. As regards the Applicant’s request for a two-year renewal, the Tribunal further found that there were no legal provisions stipulating a particular duration of a fixed-term appointment.
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 Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because, in regard to the initiation of an investigation against the Applicant, the Applicant’s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. Furthermore, the Applicant had been granted appropriate interim relief in relation to the alleged denial of her request to be granted an appropriate transfer or paid administrative leave. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s appeal against the decision to conduct an alleged “secret and retaliatory” investigation was receivable, but dismissed the...
The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant’s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s appeal was receivable.
Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (“MEU”) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...
The new system consists of a modernization of the system in place and does not change the staff members pre-existing obligation to accurately reflect their working hours. The Applicant has not provided the Tribunal with any persuasive arguments that would result in it to consider that the implementation of the Flex Time System infringed on either his contract of employment or his terms of appointment. The implementation of a practice, which is used to address specific needs of a department, does not become discriminatory solely due to the fact that other departments within the Organization do...
Premature filing of an Application: The Tribunal held that there is no rule that requires the Tribunal to wait for the action or inaction of the MEU before assuming jurisdiction in a case. The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject applications indiscriminately solely on the basis that they were filed prematurely without taking into consideration the particular and/or exceptional circumstances that may exist in each of case.
Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that while the Application appeared to be challenging a decision of the Secretary-General, the fundamental decision being contested was actually the ICSC decision to reclassify the Addis Ababa duty station. Noting that the ICSC is an independent entity, the Tribunal held that: (i) its decision cannot be imputed to the Secretary-General; (ii) it cannot extend its jurisdiction to include decisions made by the ICSC; and(iii) that the Secretary-General has not been vested with any discretionary authority with respect to the implementation of ICSC...
