2016-Ģ��ƵAT-618

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT found that Ģ��ƵDT did not address the staff members�� requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into ��incomplete�� applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the ��equivalent�� of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an extension of time were the equivalent of claims in an application; and summarily adjudged that the converted ��applications�� were not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had violated the staff members�� statutory rights to file an application and to have access to justice and, more importantly, violated the staff members�� right to due process of law. Ģ��ƵAT vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment and remanded the matter to Ģ��ƵDT with directions to permit the staff members to file their applications.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicants requested an extension of time to file their applications against the decision of [OHRM/International Civil Service Commission] that the comprehensive salary survey conducted in New Delhi, India, in June 2013 found that the current salaries for locally-recruited staff were above the labour market. Ģ��ƵDT reiterated that the decision to freeze the existing salary scales did not constitute an administrative decision for the purpose of art. 2. 1(a) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute. Ģ��ƵDT decided by way of summary judgment that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae.

Legal Principle(s)

A request for an extension of time to file an application is not the same document as an application. Ģ��ƵDT exceeds its competence and jurisdiction and commits errors in procedure when it determines that requests for an extension of time are the ��equivalent�� of applications.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Subramanian et al.

Entity

Case Number(s)