2013-Ģ��ƵAT-385

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that Ģ��ƵDT relied on the Appellant��s statement to ascertain that date. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on Ģ��ƵDT��s part. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with Ģ��ƵDT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on that ground. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant repeated the same arguments that she made before Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT held that all the alleged separate decisions the Appellant raised were either covered under the original request, time-barred themselves or not decisions subject to challenge, and therefore that Ģ��ƵDT properly rejected them. On the issue of the Appellant��s claim regarding separation while on service-incurred sick leave, Ģ��ƵAT noted the finding by Ģ��ƵDT that the issue of whether her sickness was service-incurred was pending before the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) and as such, any challenge to this issue before Ģ��ƵDT, or Ģ��ƵAT, was premature. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to terminate her contract due to the abolition of her post. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed her application as not receivable ratione temporis since she failed to contest that decision within the time limit.

Legal Principle(s)

It is within the competence of Ģ��ƵDT to consider all the evidence presented by both parties and to determine the weight to attach to such evidence. Ģ��ƵAT defers to the determination of facts by Ģ��ƵDT and only interferes if satisfied that Ģ��ƵDT considered irrelevant matters or ignored relevant matters placed before it by the parties. It is for an appellant to show how Ģ��ƵDT erred in its conclusion, by demonstrating that its findings are not supported by the evidence or that they are unreasonable.

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

Samuel Thambiah

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement