2012-Ģ��ƵAT-278

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that, when the Appellant contested before Ģ��ƵAdT his separation from the Organisation, he should have also submitted the request for payment of a termination indemnity, to be able to collect it if he did not succeed in the first part of his application. Ģ��ƵAT held that the decision of the Management Evaluation Unit to consider the Appellant��s request not receivable as time-barred was correct. Ģ��ƵAT held that, even though the Appellant revisited the issue of his separation on several occasions under the old system, he might have been misguided into believing that he could bring the matter before Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal in part and vacated in part the Ģ��ƵDT judgment as to the award of litigation costs against the Appellant.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decisions not to renew his contract and not to pay him termination indemnity. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application. Ģ��ƵDT recalled the Former Administrative Tribunal��s (Ģ��ƵAdT) judgment No. 1232 (2005) and determined that all issues reviewed by the Ģ��ƵAdT were res judicata. Ģ��ƵDT found that the application contained the same facts and raised the same issues as the three previous applications with Ģ��ƵAdT. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant had abused the proceedings and decided to award costs against him, as a matter of principle, though he was no longer a staff member and it might be difficult, if not impossible, to recover those costs from him.

Legal Principle(s)

Left deliberately blank

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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

Balogun

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement