爆料网DT held that the Applicant, not being a staff member of 爆料网OPS or any other entity of the 爆料网, had no locus standi before 爆料网DT in relation to the termination decision. Noting that the Applicant did not request management evaluation for either of the contested decisions, 爆料网DT held that it could not consider the merits of the case. 爆料网DT rejected the application as irreceivable.
Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...
At the time of the cancellation, the selection process had not been completed. The cancellation itself was an internal step to facilitate another lawful consideration, to wit, gender parity, within the selection process. It did not occasion the Applicant any direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment.
The Tribunal observed that the Organization had decided not to renew the Applicant’s appointment following his being declared persona non grata in Sudan. In practical terms, this could have necessitated redeployment of post, reassignment, administrative leave or, ultimately, non-extension of the appointment. Therefore, the Applicant’s claim to remain in office in the country where he was unwelcome was, in any event, unfounded. The Tribunal, further found that the Organization had fulfilled its legal obligations towards the Applicant and the impugned decision was lawful. Consequently, the...
The Tribunal considered that despite the Applicant’s characterization of the contested decision as a “written reprimand” in his request for management evaluation and in his application, there was never a reprimand issued by an authorized official and, thus, there was no administrative decision to contest. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal also noted that since the record related to the investigation of a complaint made against the Applicant was deleted from the Misconduct Tracking System (“MTS”), the Applicant’s claim in this...
Section 3.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5 imposes a “duty” on the Administration “to take all appropriate measures” with a view to “promot[ing] a harmonious work environment, free of intimidation, hostility, offence and any form of prohibited conduct”, but very limited statutory guidance is otherwise provided in the provision on what such measures could be in practice. The only example, at least as relevant to the present case, appears to be that “complaints of prohibited conduct are promptly addressed in a fair and impartial manner”. A search of the Appeals Tribunal’s jurisprudence reveals that the...
Receivability The contested decision, i.e., the decision taken by the Director, ID, OIOS, not to rearrange the Applicant’s reporting lines is an administrative decision. In fact, reporting lines relate directly to the core of the employee-employer relationship and have an impact not only on the daily functions that the staff member performs but, also, on its evaluation and future career prospects. Hierarchy and reporting lines are an essential part of a complex normative framework for performance management, namely ST/AI/2010/5, and impact directly the staff member’s terms of employment...
The Tribunal dismissed the application as irreceivable. The Applicant had requested the Tribunal to order a rescission of the decision to permanently withdraw his MINUSCA’s driver’s permit. The Tribunal noted that this request had been satisfied by the Administration. The relief having been fully granted, there was no longer a justiciable matter before the Tribunal, thus rendering the application moot.
Since the selection process did not yield a selection list, the Tribunal found that there was no administrative decision for the Applicant to contest. In the circumstances, the application was dismissed in its entirety as it was not receivable ratione materiae.
The fact that the Applicant was a staff member of 爆料网OPS when he applied for these contractor positions is not relevant to appreciate the receivability of the Applicant’s claims since, in the four instant cases, he contests four decisions not to select him on non-staff positions.
