2016-Ģ��ƵAT-664

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered whether Ģ��ƵRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. Ģ��ƵAT found that the evidence showed that Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. Ģ��ƵAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. Ģ��ƵAT found that the Appellant��s application for judicial review was not filed until 5 December 2014, which was over one month late. Ģ��ƵAT accordingly held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT correctly concluded that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the Agency��s decision that found her probationary performance to be unsatisfactory and to not confirm her appointment. Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed her application as not receivable ratione temporis.

Legal Principle(s)

The deadlines for filing applications and appeals, among other things, must be strictly enforced by the Tribunals. Resubmitting a request for decision review cannot, and does not, reset the date decision review is sought or the date from which the limitations period commences to run for filing an application for judicial review. Otherwise, the deadline for filing an application would have no certainty.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

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

Al Dawoud

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement