2025-Ģ��ƵAT-1548

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT rejected the former staff member��s motion for anonymity, as it was filed out of time and without exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit.

The Ģ��ƵAT found that the Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not err in concluding that the former staff member��s application was not receivable. The 60-day period within which she had to submit a request for decision review (RDR) began on 13 September 2023 and ended on 11 November 2023. As her RDR was lodged (i.e., received by the Agency) late on 11 November 2023, it was lodged within the statutory time limit. However, in the absence of a response from Ģ��ƵRWA to that RDR within 30 days of its lodgment, she then had 90 days to file her application with the Ģ��ƵRWA DT. This period expired at the end of 10 March 2024. Her application was filed on 11 March 2024, and was therefore out of time.

The Ģ��ƵAT noted that no grounds for extending or waiving that time limit were advanced by the former staff member and, in any event, the Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not have the authority to unilaterally waive or extend for either the RDR or the filing of her application.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2024/017.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Before the Ģ��ƵRWA DT, a former staff member of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Ģ��ƵRWA or Agency), contested the decision of the Agency to separate her from service upon the expiry of her fixed-term appointment (FTA).

In its Judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2024/017, the Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed the former staff member��s application as not receivable because it was filed out of time.

Former staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

If different from the date on which it was transmitted by the staff member, a Request for Decision Review is considered lodged on the date when it is received by the Agency.

The Ģ��ƵRWA DT does not have the authority to suspend, waive or extend the deadlines for decision review.

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

Ghazal Ozairi

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement