UNDT/2021/128

UNDT/2021/128, RUSSO-GOT

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant did not appeal a final administrative decision carrying direct legal effects. The application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae. The contested decisions had no nexus with the Applicant's former employment with the Organization, the application was therefore not receivable ratione personae.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant appealed the following alleged decisions: “UNOPS administrative decision to blacklisted [sic.] me for any opportunity with the United Nation common system and slander my reputation and professional image in a formal or informal mode (UNOPS shared with others in a formal or informal mode an erroneous [Internal Audit Investigation Group (“IAIG”)] report and/or conclusions); I contest contents, procedures and outcome of the UNOPS [IAIG] investigation […], and violation of my human rights.”

Legal Principle(s)

An appealable administrative decision under sec. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute is a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects the rights of another and produces direct legal consequences. Steps that are preliminary in nature may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against a final decision of the Administration that has direct legal consequences. 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 action.

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable
Outcome Extra Text

 

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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
RUSSO-GOT
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type