2016-Ģ��ƵAT-620

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ģ��ƵAT held that the evidence showed that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly found that the administrative decision denying ASHI/MIP to the Appellant was communicated to her in an e-mail of 1 May 2014. Ģ��ƵAT agreed with Ģ��ƵDT that the e-mail of 27 May 2014 ��did not refer to any new fact or information�� and was ��a mere confirmation of the earlier and unambiguous decision of 1 May 2014��. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had not erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Appellant received the administrative decision denying her MIP, making her request for management evaluation untimely. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in law when it concluded that the other claims were not receivable ratione materiae. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decisions 1) to separate her from service; 2) that she was not eligible for After Service Healthcare (ASHI/MPI), and 3) that did not allow her the benefits of the Ģ��Ƶ Joint Staff Pension Fund. Ģ��ƵDT found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae since the Applicant had only filed a request for management evaluation regarding the eligibility for ASHI/MIP. Ģ��ƵDT further found that the Applicant had filed the request untimely. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application in its entirety as not receivable.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT has jurisdiction to receive applications appealing administrative decisions only if the applicant has ��previously submitted the contested administrative decision for managerial evaluation, where required��; management evaluation or review is to correct any errors in an administrative decision so that judicial review of the administrative decision is not necessary.

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

Seyfollahzadeh

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement