2015-罌厭弝ⅰAT-557

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

As a preliminary matter, 罌厭弝ⅰAT denied the Appellant＊s application for confidentiality. 罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected the Appellant＊s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held, in agreement with 罌厭弝ⅰDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held, in agreement with 罌厭弝ⅰDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration did not reset the deadline for challenging the contested administrative decision insofar as it merely confirmed the earlier decision. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the wording of the Director of Administration＊s letter had no impact on the deadline to file a timely request for management evaluation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant had no legal or factual basis for advancing the proposition that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had deprived itself of the explanations and assistance of the parties to the case and deprived him of an opportunity to present his case and be heard. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that summary judgment is an appropriate tool to deal with issues of receivability, which is a matter of law and not fact and that 罌厭弝ⅰDT correctly applied Article 9 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Rules of Procedure when it elected to issue a summary judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision that he was not entitled to a repatriation grant at the dependency rate upon his separation from the Organisation. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found, in the absence of a timely request for management evaluation, the application was not receivable ratione materiae.

Legal Principle(s)

Personal embarrassment and discomfort are not sufficient grounds to grant confidentiality. The reiteration of an original administrative decision, if repeatedly questions by a staff member, does not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines; rather the time starts to run from the date upon which the original decision was made. Staff members have to ensure that they are aware of the Staff Regulations and Rules and the applicable procedures in the context of the administration of justice in the 罌厭弝ⅰ internal justice system; ignorance of the law is no excuse for missing 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 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT 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

Kazazi

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement