2010-惇蹋厙AT-029bis

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

The 惇蹋厙AT interpreted the application as a request for a correction of the previous 惇蹋厙AT judgment.

The 惇蹋厙AT noted that the case file of the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal revealed that the President of that Tribunal had extended the deadline for filing the appeal but a copy of that decision had not been placed in the file submitted to the 惇蹋厙AT. The 惇蹋厙AT observed that it had rendered its judgment to reject the appeal, without being aware of the President's decision.

The 惇蹋厙AT found, however, that the staff member's appeal was received by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal after the extended appeal period and, accordingly, the error committed by the 惇蹋厙AT did not alter the essence of the judgment.

The 惇蹋厙AT was of the view that the error had to be regarded as an inadvertent mistake which could be rectified. The 惇蹋厙AT held that the error had to be corrected.

In addition, the 惇蹋厙AT noted that the words "letter of notification" were used instead of the words "letter of appointment" and that this second error had to be corrected ex officio.

The 惇蹋厙AT corrected the previous 惇蹋厙AT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous 惇蹋厙AT Judgment

In Judgment No. 2010-惇蹋厙AT-029, the 惇蹋厙AT rejected the staff member's appeal on the grounds that it had been filed late and was therefore not receivable. In the same judgment, the 惇蹋厙AT noted that even if the appeal had been receivable, it was without merit.

The staff member filed an application for "reconsideration" of the previous 惇蹋厙AT Judgment.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

The 惇蹋厙AT amended paragraph 15 of its previous judgment to correctly account for an extension having been granted for filing the appeal

The 惇蹋厙AT replaced, in the second sentence of paragraph 16, the words "letter of notification" by the words "letter of appointment".

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙AT 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

El-Khatib

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement