��DT/2022/078

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not meet the criteria which would entitle him to seek recourse within the internal justice system. From the documents before the Tribunal follows that the Applicant is not a United Nations staff member. The Applicant��s submissions do not establish that an offer of employment had been issued and the Applicant does not provide any evidence that he is entitled to contract-based rights with a view to employment as a staff member within the Organization. The Administration did not undertake to conclude a contract for the recruitment of the Applicant as a staff member and can therefore not be regarded as having extended to him the protection of its administration of justice system. When closely perusing the application and the Applicant��s 10 August 2022 submission in response to Order No. 074 (NY/2022), the Tribunal is unable to identify what decision the Applicant wishes to challenge.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Not possible to identify based on the application.

Legal Principle(s)

It is trite law that the Tribunal may examine its own jurisdiction on its own initiative (see, for instance, the Appeals Tribunal in O��Neill 2011-��AT-182 and Barud 2020-��AT-998). The Tribunal notes that pursuant to art. 3.1 of the Dispute Tribunal��s Statute, access to the Tribunal is limited to staff members and, under certain conditions, former staff members and persons making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member. Staff regulation 4.1 provides that a person only becomes a United Nations staff member after they are issued a letter of appointment. However, it is jurisprudentially established that, under certain circumstances, a person who has not yet been issued a letter of appointment is entitled to seek recourse within the internal justice system, provided that he/she satisfied all the conditions of an offer of appointment (Gabaldon 2011-��AT-120). Under the consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal, an applicant to is identify the impugned administrative decision with sufficient precision to enable the Dispute Tribunal to review it (see, for instance, Planas 2010-��AT-049 and Haydar 2018-��AT-821). The Appeals Tribunal, however, has held that with self-represented applicants, it will ��take a generous approach and examine those allegations, which can be interpreted as falling into the scope of Article 2(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute��.

Outcome

Dismissed as not receivable

Outcome Extra Text

The application is rejected 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

Yodjeu Ntemde

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement