UNDT/2023/128, AAQ
The Tribunal noted that there was no submission on record indicating that the contested decision imposed adverse consequences on the Applicant. The Tribunal, thus, found that it was not established how the contested decision adversely affected the Applicant’s employment. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the jurisdictional constraints did not allow it to hear and decide the application in the absence of a particular facts-based case. Therefore, the application was dismissed as not receivable.
The Applicant contested the Administration’s decision to deny to record a change of gender in the Organization’s records.
Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute provides that the Dispute Tribunal shall be competent to hear and pass judgment on an application filed by an individual to appeal an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non‑compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment. The terms “contract” and “terms of appointment” include all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of alleged non-compliance. Settled jurisprudence also requires that such a decision must have both a direct and adverse effect on the employment of an applicant. Such an effect must be an actual past, as opposed to a potential future, effect.