2012-Ģ��ƵAT-260

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT, under Article 11.1 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited Ģ��ƵDT from extending the deadline for management evaluation, stated the reasons, facts, and law on which they were based and were sufficient to dispose of the application under consideration. Ģ��ƵAT held that these decisions were correct and that Ģ��ƵDT fully complied with its obligations under Article 11.1 of its Statute. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law on the part of Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select him for a post of Director. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the application as time-barred. Ģ��ƵDT found that an email from the Ģ��ƵCTAD Secretary-General to all Ģ��ƵCTAD staff members constituted a written notification to the Applicant. Ģ��ƵDT found that a subsequent response from the Officer-in-Charge of HRMS merely confirmed the previous decision and could not be used to reopen the time limits for submission of a request for management evaluation.

Legal Principle(s)

Staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules applicable to them.

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

Rahman

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement