爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered Ms Comerford-Verzuu’s appeal and the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal, regarding whether 爆料网DT was correct in holding that the contested decision was dated 2 August 2005 and that the request for administrative review was time-barred. 爆料网AT found that the OIOS reply of 2 August 2005 was the administrative decision of which Ms Comerford-Verzuu was seeking a review. 爆料网AT held that the subsequent correspondence was unwarranted and did not extend the time limit for seeking administrative review of the first administrative order. Accordingly, the time limit for seeking administrative review started on 2 August 2005. 爆料网AT held that, as no administrative review was sought within the prescribed time limit, 爆料网DT had correctly held that the case was not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT, in addressing the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal, referred to its judgment in Koda (2011-爆料网AT-130), where it held that OIOS is subject to the Internal Justice System since it is part of the Secretariat. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ms Comerford-Verzuu contested the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ (OIOS) decision to refuse to investigate her complaint of intimidation, harassment, etc. and failure to answer her correspondence. 爆料网DT held that Ms Comerford-Verzuu’s request for administrative review was not timely filed and thus, not receivable.
Legal Principle(s)
The date an administrative decision is rendered starts the time limit for seeking administrative review.