2014-Ģ��ƵAT-402

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s analysis of the receivability of the application was replete with factual and legal errors. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had made an error of fact and law when it tolled the limitations period for seeking management evaluation for the period 23 June to 23 August 2011. Ģ��ƵAT held that tolling the limitations period for the two or three days of the Ombudsman��s assistance, which took place after the limitations period had expired, did not assist the staff member. Ģ��ƵAT held 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 from ��the date on which the staff member received notification of the administrative decision to be contested��. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s approach exceeded its jurisdiction and competence in that it ignored the statutory prohibition against suspending or waiving the deadline for management evaluation set forth in Article 8.3 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT held that the staff member��s request for management evaluation was untimely, and his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ģ��ƵAT granted the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to recover the lump sum paid for his home leave. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant had filed his request for management evaluation in a timely manner, that the application was receivable and that the administrative decision to recover the payment for home leave was unlawful and should be rescinded. In the event the payment for home leave had already been recovered from the Applicant, Ģ��ƵDT ordered that it should be returned to him with proper adjustments made to his other entitlements and benefits.

Legal Principle(s)

There is 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 from ��the date on which the staff member received notification of the administrative decision to be contested��.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Egglesfield

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement