2017-Ģ��ƵAT-809

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant��s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant��s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before Ģ��ƵDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. Ģ��ƵAT held that failing to provide the information to Ģ��ƵDT, and then seeking to provide Ģ��ƵAT with an explanation for the delay, amounted to an attempt to have a de novo hearing of his application. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(1) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute and he had not identified any errors or failure of jurisdiction by Ģ��ƵDT to warrant reversal of the judgment. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice but without termination indemnity, which was imposed for misconduct in the form of attempted theft. Ģ��ƵDT found that the application was not receivable because it was time-barred as a result of the Applicant��s failure to file his application within the established time limits and more than one year after the statutory deadline.

Legal Principle(s)

It is not the function of Ģ��ƵAT to hear a de novo application.

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

Mbaa

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement