2015-Ģ��ƵAT-594

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered appeals of both judgment Nos. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2014/026 (judgment on the merits) and Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2014/051 (judgment on revision). Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeal against the judgment on the merits was filed out of time and was not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT held that the judgment on revision failed to identify a ground of appeal, expressed disagreement, and repeated arguments already considered and rejected by Ģ��ƵRWA DT. Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeal constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits of the case. Ģ��ƵAT held that the fact upon which the Appellant had based his revision application did not meet the strict test set out in the Ģ��ƵRWA DT Statute and that Ģ��ƵRWA DT was correct to reject it. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had not persuaded it that Ģ��ƵRWA DT erred in any way in dismissing his revision application. Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeal against judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2014/026 was not receivable ratione temporis, dismissed the appeal against judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2014/051 and affirmed judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2014/051.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decisions to reclassify his post at Grade 16, rather than Grade 17. In judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2014/026, Ģ��ƵRWA DT held that the decision to reclassify to Grade 16 was a positive decision and therefore could not be the subject of a challenge. Ģ��ƵRWA DT held that there had been no refusal decision to contest as the Applicant had never formally asked Ģ��ƵRWA to upgrade his post to Grade 17. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found the application was not receivable and dismissed the case. Subsequently, the Applicant submitted a motion for revision of judgment, claiming that an annex to his Ģ��ƵRWA DT application showed he had made an official request for his post to be classified at Grade 17, but that the text was illegible. Ģ��ƵRWA DT issued judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2014/051 dismissing the application for revision.

Legal Principle(s)

It is the staff member��s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the Ģ��Ƶ; ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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

El Saleh

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement