2015-Ģ��ƵAT-543

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no error in the Ģ��ƵRWA DT decision that the Appellant did not challenge a discretionary administrative decision that breached the terms of his appointment, rather, he was challenging the rule providing for the manner in which separation benefits should be calculated, including the applicable interest rate. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not challenge an appealable administrative decision in that he did not contest a unilateral decision taken by the administration in a precise individual case. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT correctly held that the publication of interest rates is not a unilateral decision, but one of general application. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT correctly found that the Appellant��s application was time-barred as it was made two and a half years after the permissible filing deadline and he failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would have prevented him from filing on time. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the Appellant��s application was not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the calculation of his benefits and sought payment for the shortfall. Ģ��ƵRWA DT held that the application was not receivable and dismissed the application.

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. Ignorance of the Staff Rules and procedures related to the filings of the applications cannot be invoked as an excuse for failing to comply with deadlines.

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

Abu Ayyash

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement