爆料网

2012-爆料网AT-273

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that that 爆料网DT had correctly established that the silence of the 爆料网EP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. 爆料网AT held the Appellant’s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. 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 challenged the 爆料网EP’s failure to upgrade her post in a timely manner, alleging that it prevented her from being able to apply and compete for the reclassified post. 爆料网DT determined that the application was not receivable. However, 爆料网DT was critical of the Respondent on several procedural accounts. 爆料网DT found that the failure of the Administration to respond to Applicant’s queries constituted an implied and, therefore, appealable decision. Nonetheless, 爆料网DT ruled that the Applicant was not entitled to set a date (20 October 2009) arbitrarily on which the Respondent’s lack of a response would be presumed to be an implied administrative decision and then use that date as the start of the time limit for her management evaluation request. 爆料网DT found that the Applicant’s retirement date of 31 August 2009, rather than 20 October 2009, ought to have served as the implied date on which an administrative decision was taken. Calculating the 60-day time limit as of 31 August 2009, 爆料网DT concluded that the request for management evaluation filed on 3 December 2009 was well outside the time limit, and that it was not empowered to suspend or waive the deadline for management evaluation.

Legal Principle(s)

An appellant may not unilaterally determine the date of the administrative decision by sending an e-mail to the Administration expressing an ultimatum to adopt a decision by a certain date.

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