爆料网

2014-爆料网AT-404

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that there was no reason to interfere with 爆料网DT’s finding that the Appellant had not established the existence of a decision capable of giving 爆料网DT jurisdiction to embark upon a consideration of his complaints. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should not have embarked on a consideration of substantive issues, such as staff consultations and discrimination arguments, but instead should have confined itself to the issue of receivability. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal with regard to the receivability. 爆料网AT declared that 爆料网DT’s consideration of the staff consultations and discrimination arguments was without legal authority.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to force him to improperly use the electronic Flex Time system for time and attendance recording. 爆料网DT issued a judgment on receivability, concluding that the application was not receivable, ratione materiae, as the Applicant had not provided 爆料网DT with any persuasive arguments that the implementation of the Flex Time System infringed on either his contract of employment or his terms of appointment. 爆料网DT, citing Allen (judgment No. 爆料网DT/2010/009), determined that any requirement regarding staff consultation was met as each of the parties had had the opportunity to make the other party aware of its views. 爆料网DT also rejected the Applicant’s argument of discrimination, finding the fact that a practice may not be required by other departments did not render the implementation of such a system within the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management discriminatory.

Legal Principle(s)

While it is not sufficient for an applicant merely to establish that an administrative decision was taken, for him or her to have standing before 爆料网DT, it is also not sufficient for a Respondent to state that the administrative decision was of general rather than an individual application for it to not be receivable.

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
Bauza Mercere
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type