爆料网

2012-爆料网AT-267

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. 爆料网AT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought against the wrong respondent, the 爆料网 Secretary-General, rather than the Commissioner-General of 爆料网RWA. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had exceeded its jurisdiction in determining that the application was untimely and not receivable ratione temporis since 爆料网DT lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 爆料网AT vacated the portion of the judgment dismissing the application as untimely and not receivable, ratione temporis. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment concluding the application was not receivable for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application seeking monetary damages for the alleged threats against him when he travelled to and from Gaza in 2002. 爆料网DT found that the application was not receivable. 爆料网DT found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s claims because: (a) the Applicant was a 爆料网RWA staff member at the time of the impugned decision and 爆料网RWA did not fall under the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT; and (b) the application was brought against the wrong respondent. 爆料网DT found further that the application was not receivable because it was filed after a considerable delay and was time-barred. The Applicant appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

Present and former 爆料网RWA staff members can appeal or seek review of administrative decisions alleging non-compliance with the terms of their employment contracts or disciplinary measures by filing an application seeking review before the 爆料网RWA DT, as the first step, and then appealing an adverse judgment to 爆料网AT, as the second step. 爆料网DT is prohibited from hearing applications from 爆料网RWA staff members.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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.