2010-Ģ��ƵAT-072

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration��s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with Ģ��ƵMIK. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how Ģ��ƵDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had been filed untimely. 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 terminate her appointment as part of the Ģ��Ƶ Mission in Kosovo��s (Ģ��ƵMIK) workforce reduction plan. Ģ��ƵDT addressed the application and four other similar applications in a single judgment (judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2010/019). Ģ��ƵDT rejected the applications on the grounds that the previous requests for administrative review were not submitted within the two-month timeframe prescribed in the former Staff Rule 111.2, applicable at the time. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the Applicants�� submission that their ignorance of the deadlines constituted an "exceptional circumstance" justifying a suspension, abolition, or extension of time limits.

Legal Principle(s)

A party appealing against a Ģ��ƵDT judgment will not succeed in obtaining the reversal or the modification of the judgment, or the referral of the case before Ģ��ƵAT, if the appeal does not include an argument invoking one or more of the grounds mentioned in a) to (e) of Article 2.1, of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute.

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

Samardzic

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement