2016-Ģ��ƵAT-627

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing and the production of documents since there was no need for further clarification. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s contentions regarding the application of the Palestinian Labour Law No. 7 (2000) and the Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s error in calculating the time limits were misconceived. Ģ��ƵAT held that, regarding the procedure and timeline involved in challenging administrative decisions, former Ģ��ƵWRA Area Staff Rule 111. 3, which was in effect at the material time when the Appellant��s contract as a teacher was terminated, was applicable. Ģ��ƵAT agreed with the Commissioner-General that the Appellant��s reliance on the Agency��s letter which advised him he could file his appeal within 60 days was also misplaced, as that letter concerned issues arising from a later appointment with the Agency by which he was contracted as a Sanitation Labourer and was thus wholly unrelated to the present appeal. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT had made no errors in law or fact in reaching the conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his contract as a teacher. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found that the application was not receivable ratione temporis since the Applicant had submitted his application over twelve months too late.

Legal Principle(s)

Left deliberately blank.

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

El Rush

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement