����AV

The Tribunal rejected the application on the merits.

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.

As results from the evidence and from the Respondent’s submissions, the contested decision consisted in the UNCB’s recommendation against awarding the Applicant any compensation, which was included in the minutes of UNCB’s 343rd meeting of 20 February 2014 submitted for the ASG/Controller’s consideration on 4 April 2014.The Tribunal, after reviewing the content of the contested decision, finds that instead of making her own final and reasoned decision on the Applicant’s claim, the ASG/Controller appears to have only signed off on the recommendation made by the UNCB to deny the claim on 23...

The non-disciplinary or administrative measure imposed against the Applicant is unlawful because, at the date of issuance of the contested decision, there was no longer an existing employment contract with the Applicant who was no longer a staff member. Accordingly, the Secretary-General had no longer the authority to impose such a measure.The entire complex process of launching an investigation into allegations of misconduct, instituting a disciplinary process and completing it by issuing the final decision, if any, to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure against a staff member...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s claim that he was underpaid between July 2004 and 31 May 2005, was not receivable. The Tribunal was satisfied that in the period in relation to which the Applicant alleged underpayments by the UNFPA Administration, the Applicant was not a staff member appointed by the Secretary-General. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to persons who are staff members or former staff members of the Organization. Therefore, the Applicant had no locus standi regarding the claims derived from another status, but not a staff member. With regard to the non-renewal...

The Tribunal granted the application is part and awarded the Applicant USD4,000 in compensation for procedural violations.

The Respondent withdrew from the impugned decision to change the Applicant’s functional title from Team Assistant to Language Assistant. Accordingly, the claim was moot at the time of the filing of the application and therefore not receivable. With respect to the decision to remove the Applicant’s responsibility for the Litani magazine the Tribunal found that this claim was not the subject of management evaluation and therefore not receivability. With respect to the Applicant’s reassignment, the Tribunal noted that the impugned decision entailed a change in the Applicant’s place, her...

The Tribunal found that UNMISS was incorrect when it restricted applicants to the TJO to staff already employed by UNMISS since the Applicant was an internal candidate. The Tribunal concluded that the decision to consider the Applicant ineligible for the TJO was unlawful and breached the Applicant’s right to be fully and fairly considered for the post. The Tribunal found the application receivable and that the contested decision not to find the Applicant eligible for the TJO and the related decision to continue the selection process were unlawful and breached the Applicant’s right to a full...

The Applicant, as an ad litem judge of the ICTY, is considered to be a “non-Secretariat United Nations official”. It follows that the Applicant cannot be considered as a former United Nations staff member within the meaning of art. 3.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute. Whilst being fully cognizant of the Applicant’s right to access to justice, the Tribunal is forced to apply its Statute, which prevents it from asserting jurisdiction over the application. As the Applicant does not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants described in art. 3.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute...

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.