2012-Ģ��ƵAT-273

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly established that the silence of the Ģ��ƵEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. Ģ��ƵAT held the Appellant��s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT Judgment: The Applicant challenged the Ģ��ƵEP��s failure to upgrade her post in a timely manner, alleging that it prevented her from being able to apply and compete for the reclassified post. Ģ��ƵDT determined that the application was not receivable. However, Ģ��ƵDT was critical of the Respondent on several procedural accounts. Ģ��ƵDT found that the failure of the Administration to respond to Applicant��s queries constituted an implied and, therefore, appealable decision. Nonetheless, Ģ��ƵDT ruled that the Applicant was not entitled to set a date (20 October 2009) arbitrarily on which the Respondent��s lack of a response would be presumed to be an implied administrative decision and then use that date as the start of the time limit for her management evaluation request. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant��s retirement date of 31 August 2009, rather than 20 October 2009, ought to have served as the implied date on which an administrative decision was taken. Calculating the 60-day time limit as of 31 August 2009, Ģ��ƵDT concluded that the request for management evaluation filed on 3 December 2009 was well outside the time limit, and that it was not empowered to suspend or waive the deadline for management evaluation.

Legal Principle(s)

An appellant may not unilaterally determine the date of the administrative decision by sending an e-mail to the Administration expressing an ultimatum to adopt a decision by a certain date.

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

Rosana

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement