Judgment No. 1666
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
"A claim to a ruling in law will be receivable only if the complainant shows some cause of action. Generally he may not do so if he may instead challenge a specific decision in support of his claim to redress. "Here the complainant makes two claims to rulings in law. The first seems to have been made only to lend substance to his claims to redress. "It cannot stand on its own since it shows no cause of action that the complainant may have."
Keywords
claim; receivability of the complaint; cause of action
Consideration 6(c)
Extract:
It may not be inferred from Short-Term Rule 3.5 and from the extension of his appointment that the complainant was entitled to the retroactive grant of non-local status. "The effect of the Rule is to bestow retroactively on a short-term official benefits granted to the holder of a fixed-term appointment. If, like the complainant, he belongs to the professional category the place of recruitment will have no bearing on the terms of his appointment. So neither does it have any bearing on entitlements granted retroactively."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ILO SHORT-TERM STAFF RULE 3.5
Keywords
staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; duty station; professional category; contract; appointment; short-term; local status; non-local status
| 
