��DT/2021/038

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was a staff member of ��RWA and contested a decision purportedly taken by that agency. The Tribunal further recalled that ��RWA does not fall under the jurisdiction of ��DT. Accordingly, the Applicant had no locus standi before the Tribunal. The Application was thus dismissed as non-receivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested what he described as a cover up of administrative corruption represented by no response from the Commissioner General of ��RWA to the reported misconduct by the Office of Internal Oversight Services.

Legal Principle(s)

The Tribunal is competent to hear applications filed by staff members from entities that fall under its jurisdiction. Further, the Tribunal is competent to adjudicate the merits only where the receivability requirement is satisfied.

Outcome

Dismissed as not receivable

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

Mousa

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement