2013-Ģ��ƵAT-306

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. Ģ��ƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. Ģ��ƵAT held that therefore Ģ��ƵDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before Ģ��ƵAT for consideration. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s analysis of the applicable deadlines contained several legal errors and that there was no legal authority for Ģ��ƵDT to commence the running of the sixty-day limitation period from the end of the Ombudsman��s settlement negotiations, rather than the date on which the staff member received notification of the administrative decision to be contested. Ģ��ƵAT held that for Ģ��ƵDT to commence the running of the sixty-day period in a manner inconsistent with Staff Rule 11. 2(c) violated the statutory prohibition in Article 8(3) against Ģ��ƵDT suspending or waiving the deadline for seeking management evaluation. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed Mr Wu��s appeal, affirmed the Secretary-General��s cross-appeal, and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to grant him an unaccompanied shipment entitlement or a lump sum for non-removal allowance upon separation due to retirement. Ģ��ƵDT found for the Applicant, issuing a default judgment.

Legal Principle(s)

When Ģ��ƵDT acts in excess of its jurisdiction and authority, the aggrieved party may bring an appeal, regardless of whether the ruling is called an order or a judgment. Ģ��ƵDT has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation.

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

Ming Wu

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement