2013-Ģ��ƵAT-304

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that Ģ��ƵRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT correctly determined that the Appellant��s claims were not receivable. On the question of whether Ģ��ƵRWA DT erred procedurally when it permitted the Respondent to participate in the proceedings and to submit a late reply, Ģ��ƵAT held that, whether or not Ģ��ƵRWA DT erred procedurally, in the absence of an order to that effect, such error did not, of itself, vitiate the Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s decision that the applications were not receivable ratione temporis. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellants had failed to demonstrate how Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s consideration of their applications was prejudiced by reason of the Respondent��s participation in the proceedings Ģ��ƵAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that Ģ��ƵRWA DT erred in law when it restricted the observations to the Respondent��s reply to those Appellants who had requested leave to file such observations. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicants contested the Administration��s decision to make deductions from their salaries in response to their strike action. Ģ��ƵRWA effected re-payment of the deductions more than a year later. Ģ��ƵRWA DT rejected the applications as time-barred in a summary judgment on a matter of law.

Legal Principle(s)

An administrative decision is a unilateral decision taken by the Administration in a precise individual case that produces direct legal consequences to the legal order.

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

Al Surkhi et al.

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement