2015-Ģ��ƵAT-566

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant��s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. Ģ��ƵAT found no errors of fact or law by Ģ��ƵDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management evaluation of a written decision and, nevertheless, filed an application for judicial review; and (b) filed an application for judicial review when it was unreasonable for him to assume there was an implied decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err when it considered the huge volume of unnecessary documents filed to support the frivolous application as another factor supporting its conclusion that the Appellant manifestly abused the proceedings. Ģ��ƵAT denied the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to conduct an investigation under ST/SGB/2008/5. Ģ��ƵDT found the application not to be receivable ratione materiae.

Legal Principle(s)

A request for management evaluation of an administrative decision must be submitted by the staff member prior to bringing an application before Ģ��ƵDT. A staff member must be familiar with the Staff Rules and understand his or her obligation to act in conformity with those rules. The date of an implied administrative decision is based on objective elements that both parties can accurately determine. Where Ģ��ƵDT determines that a party has manifestly abused the proceedings before it, it may award costs against that party.

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

Terragnolo

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement