2010-��AT-029

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, ��AT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. ��AT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the ��AT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never be disclosed to the Tribunal. ��AT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

��RWA decision: The Applicant contested the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment for a social worker post. The ��RWA JAB recommended that the Commissioner-General review the decision. The Commissioner-General rejected the administrative appeal and did not follow the JAB recommendation after failed attempts of informal resolution.

Legal Principle(s)

A contract whereby an Agency recruited a staff member who would be governed by the staff rules is not a common-law contract. According to the Staff Rules, the contract can only be concluded validly on the date when the Commissioner-General, or an official of the Agency duly empowered to act on his behalf, signs the staff member��s letter of notification. The candidates for a public post are presumed to know the rules applicable to the employing public corporation. Information relating to the informal dispute resolution process shall remain confidential and shall therefore never be disclosed to the Tribunal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

El-Khatib

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement