2010-惇蹋厙AT-071

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT held that the Appellant failed to explain how 惇蹋厙DT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 惇蹋厙AT recalled that the 惇蹋厙DT Statute precluded 惇蹋厙DT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙DT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 惇蹋厙DT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to terminate her appointment as part of a drawdown plan. 惇蹋厙DT rejected her application as not receivable on grounds that the Applicant had failed to submit in a timely manner her request for a management evaluation of the administrative decision to terminate her appointment.

Legal Principle(s)

惇蹋厙DT cannot suspend or waive the deadlines for management evaluation.

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 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

Kovacevic

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement