2018-Ģ��ƵAT-877

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the Appellant��s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT noted that neither the Ģ��ƵAT Statute nor the Ģ��ƵAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. Ģ��ƵAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party��s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set forth in Article 2(1) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT agreed with Ģ��ƵDT in that the application was not receivable ratione materiae because the Appellant did not present any documents to Ģ��ƵDT showing that he had filed a request for management evaluation. Ģ��ƵAT also agreed with Ģ��ƵDT in that the application was not receivable and ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the contested administrative decision. Ģ��ƵAT refused the motion, dismissed the appeal, and affirmed Ģ��ƵDT��s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application with Ģ��ƵDT, claiming that the Organisation had not paid him at the step levels stipulated in his 2009 and 2010 letters of appointment. Ģ��ƵDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation. Ģ��ƵDT further held that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after receipt of the contested decision. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the Applicant��s application.

Legal Principle(s)

Article 8(1)(c) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Staff Rule 11. 2, subparagraphs (a) and (c) require staff members to seek management evaluation of the contested decision as a mandatory first step. Pursuant to Article 8(4) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 7(6) of the Ģ��ƵDT Rules of Procedure, an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant��s receipt of the contested administrative decision.

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

Atome

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement