2010-Ģ��ƵAT-050

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

In judgment No. 2010-Ģ��ƵAT-050, Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the Ģ��ƵDT judgment. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant��s appeal before the JAB. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-Ģ��ƵAT-050/Corr. 1, Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. Ģ��ƵAT rejected the Secretary-General��s submission that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT, however, maintained the other grounds for the rejection of the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to deny him a promotion to the P-5. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant had not requested a further extension of the deadline of 19 December 2008 for filing the full statement of appeal. Ģ��ƵDT, therefore, considered that the appeal was abandoned under Article 10 of the RoP of JAB, and that it had to be removed from the list of appeals pending before JAB. Ģ��ƵDT held it was competent to rule on appeals submitted to JAB only if they were pending as of 1 July 2009, which was not the case in this instance. Ģ��ƵDT found that, as the appeal was inadmissible, the Applicant��s presence at the hearing would not have contributed to the settlement of the dispute. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application finding that it had been erroneously submitted to a tribunal lacking jurisdiction in the matter.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT only has jurisdiction to hear pending matters, but not matters that had already been decided by the JAB or had been abandoned while pending a JAB hearing.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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

Ishak

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement