±¬ÁÏÍø

The application was not receivable because the Applicant was a former staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøIDO. While the Applicant had no locus standi before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, his case would have been properly filed either with ILOAT or ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.

The Applicant, as a former Service Contractor, does not have standing to submit an application to the Tribunal pursuant to article 2.1 and 3.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that as there is no sufficient nexus between her non-selection to the advertised post and the terms of her previous appointment, the application is rejected as irreceivable ratione personae. Sufficient nexus (receivability ratione personae): A former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose, partly arose, or flowed from his or her employment. There must be a sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned decision. In the absence of any provisions giving rights to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant's claims concerning the two 2010 decision were time-barred under art. 8.4 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, contrary to his claims, the Applicant had received, in May 2010 and August 2010, management evaluation decisions in response to his requests regarding the refusal to grant special leave and his separation from service. Regarding the 2015 decision not to re-employ the Applicant, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, having been separated from service in May 2010, and not having contested that separation within the prescribed time limits, the Applicant did not...

Scope and standard of review Although the Applicant raised a number of arguments related to the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment and seeks remedies consequent to this decision, the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment is not properly put before the Tribunal and does not fall within the ambit of the judicial review in the present case. In any event, the Applicant is time-barred from challenging his separation from service. He was separated from service on 28 July 2014 and he did not submit a request for management evaluation of that decision within the 60-day...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant filed her application on the merits on 26 March 2018, namely on the same day on which she filed her two requests for management evaluation. The Tribunal recalled that according to art.8.1(d)(i)(b) of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear an application that is filed within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for management evaluation, which in the case at hand was 45 days. Having filed the application on the same day as the two requests for management evaluation, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to hear it...

On receivability: Applying the test of Gabaldon, even though all the conditions of staff rule 4.8 had not been fulfilled, the Applicant had locus standi and was legitimately entitled to similar rights as those of staff members and that the Organization must be regarded as having extended to her the protection of its administration of justice system. She held a valid contract, the scope of which must be determined when other issues are considered. The reach and application of Gabaldon is indeed limited and does not entitle the Applicant to take full benefit of the Staff Regulations regarding...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant, an individual contractor, did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants under art. 3.1 of its Statute. Noting that individual contractors are not staff members, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing and, consequently, that the application was not receivable ratione personae.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant, not being a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS or any other entity of the ±¬ÁÏÍø, had no locus standi before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in relation to the termination decision. Noting that the Applicant did not request management evaluation for either of the contested decisions, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it could not consider the merits of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

The evidence shows that the Applicant, on 6 June 2019, signed a contract with ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA that was governed by the terms and conditions of the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA individual contactors. Accordingly, the Applicant, not being a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA or any other entity of the United Nations, has no locus standi before this Tribunal. The present application cannot be entertained.