2017-Ģ��ƵAT-773

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT found no error in the Ģ��ƵRWA DT finding that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. Ģ��ƵAT rejected the Appellant��s contention that Ģ��ƵRWA DT erred in that it examined the timeliness of his application sua sponte, without it having been raised by the Respondent, holding that the competence of Ģ��ƵRWA DT to review the observance of the statutory deadlines for filing an application can be exercised even if the parties or the administrative authorities do not raise the issue because it constitutes a matter of law and the Ģ��ƵRWA DT Statute prevents Ģ��ƵRWA DT from receiving a case which is not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵRWA DT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the application was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select him for a post. Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed the application as non-receivable ratione temporis, for not having been filed within the time limit of 90 days of receipt of the response to his request for decision review.

Legal Principle(s)

Strict adherence to filing deadlines assures the timely hearing of cases and rendering of judgments; it is irrelevant whether a deadline is missed by several minutes, several hours, or several days. Ģ��ƵRWA DT may examine the timeliness of an application sua sponte, without it having been raised by the parties, as it constitutes a matter of law and the Ģ��ƵRWA DT Statute prevents Ģ��ƵRWA DT from receiving a case that is 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

Ali

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement