2026-��AT-1666

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The ��AT noted that a part of the staff member��s request for management evaluation appeared not to have been considered by the ��DT. The ��AT was of the view that the information in the MER standard form constituted a request for management evaluation of the contested decisions, including breach of an alleged promise to continue her employment by maintaining funding of her post for a particular period. The ��AT held that the staff member had raised sufficiently the issues of the lawfulness of the abolition of her post and the termination of her employment to have met the requirements of their receivability by the ��DT. The ��AT also found that its conclusion was reinforced by other documents. The ��AT held that the ��DT had erred in law in finding the application not receivable.

The ��AT granted the appeal, reversed the ��DT Judgment, and remanded the case to the ��DT for consideration on the merits.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member contested a decision to abolish her post and the consequential termination of her fixed-term appointment.

In Judgment No. ��DT/2025/078, the ��DT dismissed her application as not receivable.

The former staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

Receivability is determined, following an objective and informed assessment, by a sufficient and timely request for management evaluation and not by the Administration��s response to that request.

Outcome

Appeal granted

Case remanded

Outcome Extra Text

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

Ghada Ahmed Diab

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement