2025-Ģ��ƵAT-1522

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member��s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The Ģ��ƵAT further held that the Administration��s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration��s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration��s opinion that the matter was closed was not a decision of the Ģ��ƵDT and did not have the effect of closing the matter before the Ģ��ƵDT.

The Ģ��ƵAT held that although the staff member failed to pursue his claim for over 12 years, it could not be rejected on the basis that it was not receivable when he filed it with the JCD timeously, in the manner required, it had already been referred to the JDC and was required to have been transferred to the Ģ��ƵDT. Any shortcomings in the transfer of cases from the JDC to the Ģ��ƵDT was not attributable to the former staff member. He therefore should not be denied access to justice.

The Ģ��ƵAT found that the Ģ��ƵDT erred in finding the staff member��s application not receivable and reversed the Ģ��ƵDT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The former staff member filed an application in which he sought adjudication of the request for review that he filed in 2007 which was transferred from the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC) to the Dispute Tribunal following the closure of the JDC and the establishment of the Dispute Tribunal in July 2009.

In Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2024/013, the Dispute Tribunal dismissed the application as not receivable.

The former staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

An application cannot be received by the Ģ��ƵDT if it is filed more than three years after the staff member��s receipt of the contested administrative decision.

Determinations about the status of a judicial proceeding are for the relevant judicial body to make, not the Administration.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Sanjaya Bahel

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement