Judgment No. 3653
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decisions not to appoint him to a post, not to renew his contract, not to compensate him for “extra-contractual” work and not to compensate him on account of defamation by his former supervisor and for exposure to asbestos.
selection procedure; complaint dismissed
There is [...] no provision under which the Tribunal is competent to hear the claim concerning the complainant’s non-selection for the post [...]. As he was not selected for the post, he did not become a WFP staff member from that application and therefore obtained no right to lodge an internal appeal under Staff Regulation 301.11.1 to challenge the non-selection. Because of his non-selection, he had not entered into a contractual relationship with the WFP. Accordingly, by virtue of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute, he has no standing to bring a claim before the Tribunal alleging the non-observance of the terms and conditions of an appointment which he did not have. This position was explained in Judgment 1509, consideration 16 [...].
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1509
locus standi; status of complainant; candidate; external candidate; ratione personae; non official
The complainant presented a new claim in his rejoinder [...]. However, as the Tribunal has consistently held, a complainant may not in his or her rejoinder enter new claims not contained in his or her original submissions. Consequently, this new claim must in any case be dismissed (see Judgment 3207, consideration 6, and the case law cited therein).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3207
new claim; rejoinder