2016-Ģ��ƵAT-633

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT found that Ģ��ƵDT had not addressed the Appellant��s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant��s request for more time into an application. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant��s due process rights. Ģ��ƵAT vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment and remanded the matter to Ģ��ƵDT with directions to permit the Appellant to file their application.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed a request for an extension of time to file their application against the decision which found according to a comprehensive salary survey conducted in New Delhi, India, that the current salaries for locally recruited staff were above the labor 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 its Statute. Ģ��ƵDT decided by way of summary judgment that the application was not receivable ratione materiae.

Legal Principle(s)

A request for an extension of time to file an application is not equivalent to an actual application and shall not be treated as such. The request for an extension of time was made so that the staff member could obtain the information needed to prepare an application. In other words, the staff member was not ready to file an application without first obtaining additional information needed to support said application. In such circumstances, however, the Ģ��ƵDT is not necessarily required to grant the staff member��s requests for an extension of time but shall not sua sponte convert such requests to 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

Bharati

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement