2012-Ģ��ƵAT-267

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before Ģ��ƵRWA DT. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought against the wrong respondent, the Ģ��Ƶ Secretary-General, rather than the Commissioner-General of Ģ��ƵRWA. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in determining that the application was untimely and not receivable ratione temporis since Ģ��ƵDT lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Ģ��ƵAT vacated the portion of the judgment dismissing the application as untimely and not receivable, ratione temporis. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment concluding the application was not receivable for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application seeking monetary damages for the alleged threats against him when he travelled to and from Gaza in 2002. Ģ��ƵDT found that the application was not receivable. Ģ��ƵDT found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Applicant��s claims because: (a) the Applicant was a Ģ��ƵRWA staff member at the time of the impugned decision and Ģ��ƵRWA did not fall under the jurisdiction of Ģ��ƵDT; and (b) the application was brought against the wrong respondent. Ģ��ƵDT found further that the application was not receivable because it was filed after a considerable delay and was time-barred. The Applicant appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

Present and former Ģ��ƵRWA staff members can appeal or seek review of administrative decisions alleging non-compliance with the terms of their employment contracts or disciplinary measures by filing an application seeking review before the Ģ��ƵRWA DT, as the first step, and then appealing an adverse judgment to Ģ��ƵAT, as the second step. Ģ��ƵDT is prohibited from hearing applications from Ģ��ƵRWA staff members.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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

Achkar

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement