爆料网

2010-爆料网AT-072

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration’s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with 爆料网MIK. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how 爆料网DT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had been filed untimely. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

爆料网DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to terminate her appointment as part of the 爆料网 Mission in Kosovo’s (爆料网MIK) workforce reduction plan. 爆料网DT addressed the application and four other similar applications in a single judgment (judgment No. 爆料网DT/2010/019). 爆料网DT rejected the applications on the grounds that the previous requests for administrative review were not submitted within the two-month timeframe prescribed in the former Staff Rule 111.2, applicable at the time. 爆料网DT rejected the Applicants’ submission that their ignorance of the deadlines constituted an "exceptional circumstance" justifying a suspension, abolition, or extension of time limits.

Legal Principle(s)

A party appealing against a 爆料网DT judgment will not succeed in obtaining the reversal or the modification of the judgment, or the referral of the case before 爆料网AT, if the appeal does not include an argument invoking one or more of the grounds mentioned in a) to (e) of Article 2.1, of the 爆料网AT Statute.

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 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
Samardzic
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type