±¬ÁÏÍø

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a examin¨¦ trois recours du requ¨¦rant.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que l'ordonnance contest¨¦e ¨¦tait une ordonnance interlocutoire et ne relevait manifestement pas de sa comp¨¦tence.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant n'avait pas pr¨¦sent¨¦ de documents prouvant qu'il ¨¦tait membre du personnel des Nations Unies et qu'il n'avait aucun statut juridique devant le Tribunal. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a not¨¦ que rien ne prouvait qu'une offre d'engagement lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ adress¨¦e pour l'un ou l'autre poste. Deuxi¨¨mement, il n¡¯a pas accompli les formalit¨¦s pr¨¦alables au recrutement pour les deux postes. Troisi¨¨mement, il n'a pas...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered three appeals by the applicant.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'affirmation de M. Neupane selon laquelle l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT avait commis une erreur en estimant qu'il contestait la d¨¦cision de r¨¦affectation alors qu'en fait il contestait l'absence d'habilitation du Comit¨¦ central de contr?le des missions et d'inscription sur la liste pour le poste r¨¦affect¨¦. La requ¨ºte ¨¦tait assez floue et portait principalement sur la question de la r¨¦gularit¨¦ de la d¨¦cision de r¨¦affectation qui ¨¦tait conforme ¨¤ la demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique de M. Neupane contestant directement et clairement sa r¨¦affectation. La question de l¡¯inscription sur la liste n¡¯a ¨¦t¨¦...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Neupane's contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it found that he was contesting the reassignment decision when in fact he was contesting the lack of his Field Central Review Board clearance and roster membership for the reassigned post. The application was quite unclear, and focused mainly on the question of regularity of the reassignment decision which was in line with Mr. Neupane¡¯s request for management evaluation challenging directly and clearly his reassignment. The issue of rostering was raised only as an argument to prove the alleged procedural irregularity of Mr...