2017-Ģ��ƵAT-743

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT committed an error of law. Ģ��ƵAT held that the record did not support the finding that the Appellant was notified for the purposes of Staff Rule 11.2(c) during her June 2014 meetings (or any previous ones) with the effect of triggering the time limits thereunder for her request for management evaluation. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the minutes upon which Ģ��ƵDT based its finding were unsigned, undated, and not shared with the Appellant at the time. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the meetings of June 2014 did not have the aim of notification of the administrative decision of the non-renewal of her appointment, but rather were intended to help her identify new job opportunities. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no other corroborating evidence from that time or proximate thereto, contrary to what was suggested by Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT held the Ģ��ƵDT finding based on the minutes was incompatible with good practice and insufficient to conclude that the Appellant had been notified of the decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant received notification of the contested decision on 26 August 2014 in the form of an interoffice memorandum. Ģ��ƵAT rejected the Appellant��s assertion of a violation of ST/AI/1998/9. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in law when it determined that the Appellant��s request for management evaluation was late. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s application was receivable ratione materiae. Ģ��ƵAT vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment and remanded the case to Ģ��ƵDT for full consideration on its merits by another judge.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application as not receivable ratione materiae for failure to request management evaluation within the requisite statutory period.

Legal Principle(s)

A staff member��s knowledge of a decision is not necessarily the same thing as a staff member receiving notification of a decision.

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

Jean

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement