2017-Ģ��ƵAT-727

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT upheld the Ģ��ƵDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the Ģ��ƵDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in holding the Appellant��s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did not make it not receivable, noting that there was nothing in the Ģ��ƵDT Statute which prevented Ģ��ƵDT from receiving such motions or requests. On the 2015 decision, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione personae as the contested decision could not have adversely affected the individual��s terms of appointment as a former staff member. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly concluded that since the Appellant had not maintained any of the terms of his former appointment, including the right to be re-employed, there was insufficient nexus between his former employment that ended in 2010 and the impugned decision in 2015 not to re-employ him and that therefore the application was not receivable ratione personae. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in law by addressing the merits of an application that was not receivable and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the Ģ��ƵDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken from the record. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant contested the decisions not to grant him special leave without pay and to separate him (2010 decisions) and not to reemploy him (2015 decision). Ģ��ƵDT found that the 2010 decisions were not receivable ratione temporis and that the 2015 decision was not receivable ratione personae.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT cannot waive the time limit to file an appeal more than three years after the applicant��s receipt of the contested administrative decision, and Ģ��ƵDT acts ultra vires or beyond its competence and jurisdiction when it considers whether an applicant had established exceptional circumstances for waiving such a time limit. Although Ģ��ƵDT has no discretion to grant a motion to waive the deadline for filing an application challenging a decision that is more than three years old, there is nothing in the Ģ��ƵDT Statute that prevents the Ģ��ƵDT from receiving such motions and therefore Ģ��ƵDT cannot refuse to receive an untimely or late motion for a waiver by finding it not receivable.

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

Khan

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement