2019-Ģ��ƵAT-936

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify Ģ��ƵAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. Ģ��ƵAT held that an application before Ģ��ƵDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵFPA Compliance Review Board, which in this case reviewed the recommendation to terminate the Appellant��s appointment, does not constitute a technical body. Ģ��ƵAT held that a disciplinary process was not undertaken and completed nor did the administrative decision impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his permanent appointment for unsatisfactory service. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the Applicant��s application on the ground that he had failed to request management evaluation of the impugned decision (not receivable ratione materiae).

Legal Principle(s)

The Tribunals have no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for requests for management evaluation.

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

Diallo

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement