2025-Ģ��ƵAT-1525

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the Ģ��ƵDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Ģ��ƵAT nevertheless noted that the staff member��s application filed with the Ģ��ƵDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the Ģ��ƵAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a Ģ��ƵDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The Ģ��ƵAT found that the staff member sought to re-litigate his arguments and had thereby manifestly abused the judicial process.

The Ģ��ƵAT further noted that the Ģ��ƵDT had made no error in finding that the staff member��s first application was lis pendens when his second application was made.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member contested a decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment.

In Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2022/068, the Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application as not receivable.

The staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

The doctrine of res judicata means that an application is not receivable ratione materiae when the matter has been resolved by a prior final judgment. Res judicata signifies that the same cause of action cannot be adjudicated twice.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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

Abdurrahman Turk

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement