爆料网

2013-爆料网AT-365

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President’s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on a website were matters of internal organisation which did not constitute acts adversely affective staff member’s rights and, as such, did not constitute a challengeable administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated that 爆料网DT made any error of law or fact in rejecting his application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly determined that the criterion for summary judgment was met. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not established any legal or factual basis for his submission that the principle of audi alteram partem had been disregarded by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

爆料网DT Order: In Order No. 1 (PRES/2012), the President of 爆料网DT rejected Mr Gehr’s motion for recusal. Mr Gehr challenged the decision to publish the Order on a separate section of the 爆料网DT website, seeking its removal or its publication in the same way as other decisions relating to recusal were done. 爆料网DT rejected the application.

Legal Principle(s)

In general, matters of internal organisation, such as the publication of orders on the 爆料网DT website, do not constitute appealable administrative decisions.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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
Gehr
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type