UNDT/2021/044, Applicant
After the Applicant’s separation, she is not entitled to receive any further assistance from the Organization with respect to the renewal of her passport. Therefore, the Administration’s lack of response did not have an impact on the Applicant’s terms of employment. This decision is therefore non-receivable. The Applicant has neither been repatriated nor traveled outside the duty station because she failed to provide the required information. There is therefore no decision from the Administration not to repatriate the Applicant which is capable of judicial review. A staff member’s privileges and immunities cease with his or her separation from the Organization. The Applicant did not challenge any failure of the Organization to assert its privileges and immunities while she was still in its employment. As the Applicant no longer enjoys privileges and immunities since her separation, there can be no decision from the Administration not to assert such privileges and immunities after that date
(a) OHCHR’s decision to cease all contact with the Applicant following her separation (b) the Organization’s failure to comply with its obligation to repatriate the Applicant upon her separation (c) the Administration’s failure to inform the Applicant about the efforts undertaken to facilitate the issuance of a valid national passport (d) the Organization’s failure to assert its privileges and immunities.
The Dispute Tribunal has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of judicial review. When defining the issues of a case, the Dispute Tribunal may consider the application as a whole. The Dispute Tribunal must adequately interpret and comprehend the application whatever name the moving party attaches to it.