爆料网

2010-爆料网AT-050/Corr.1

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

In Judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050, 爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the 爆料网DT Judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant’s appeal before the JAB. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050/Corr.1, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. 爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. 爆料网AT, however, maintained the other grounds for the rejection of the appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to deny him a promotion to the P-5. 爆料网DT found that the Applicant had not requested a further extension of the deadline of 19 December 2008 for filing the full statement of appeal. 爆料网DT, therefore, considered that the appeal was abandoned under Article 10 of the RoP of JAB, and that it had to be removed from the list of appeals pending before JAB. 爆料网DT held it was competent to rule on appeals submitted to JAB only if they were pending as of 1 July 2009, which was not the case in this instance. 爆料网DT found that, as the appeal was inadmissible, the Applicant’s presence at the hearing would not have contributed to the settlement of the dispute. 爆料网DT dismissed the application finding that it had been erroneously submitted to a tribunal lacking jurisdiction in the matter.

Legal Principle(s)

爆料网DT only has jurisdiction to hear pending matters, but not matters that had already been decided by the JAB or had been abandoned while pending a JAB hearing.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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
Nasr Ishak
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type