2014-Ģ��ƵAT-406

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

On the issue of receivability, Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant��s claim that Ģ��ƵRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. Ģ��ƵAT rejected the Appellant��s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a tardy reply. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to appoint him to the post of Registrar at Siblin Vocational Training Center (VTC). Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed the application summarily sua sponte as not receivable because the Applicant had failed to timely seek administrative review under the former Area Staff Rule 111. 3 prior to filing the application. Ģ��ƵRWA DT gave the Commissioner-General leave to file a tardy reply to the application and to take part in the proceedings.

Legal Principle(s)

The knowledge of the facts �C and not the legal consequences flowing from the facts �C determines the date from which management evaluation or decision review must be sought.

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

Chahrour

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement