2023-Ģ��ƵAT-1327

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member��s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The Ģ��ƵRWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the Ģ��ƵRWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the July 2019 decision.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2021/064.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A staff member contested a decision of the Ģ��ƵRWA concerning the classification of his post under a new occupational health salary scale.

In Judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2021/064, the Ģ��ƵRWA DT concluded that the staff member had failed to submit a timely request for decision review and dismissed the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

An appealable administrative decision is a decision whereby its key characteristic is the capacity to produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member��s terms and conditions of appointment.

It is part of the duties and inherent powers of a Judge to adequately interpret and comprehend the application submitted and to identify what is being contested.

Ģ��ƵAT jurisprudence is clear that the request for decision review provides the Administration with the opportunity to reassess the situation and correct possible mistakes or errors. Neither the Ģ��ƵRWA DT nor the Appeals Tribunal may suspend or waive the deadline for requesting decision review.

A subsequent reiteration or reaffirmation of a previously communicated decision is not a new administrative decision triggering a new time limit for appeal.

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

Husein Taha Abu Heija

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement