2012-��AT-279

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that ��RWA DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable for being time-barred. ��AT held that ��RWA DT had correctly found the application not receivable ratione materiae since the Appellant had not contested an administrative decision and had erroneously filed his appeal with the International Joint Appeals Board. ��AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ��RWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to deny him the payment of interest at eight per cent for the 20-month delay in the payment of his retirement benefit. ��RWA DT found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae since there was no administrative decision that the Applicant could appeal. ��RWA DT found that the International Staff Joint Appeals Board had no jurisdiction over his application because it related to his employment relationship with ��RWA as a staff member. ��RWA DT found that the application was also not receivable because it was time-barred, as both the request for administrative review and the appeal to the Area Joint Appeals Board had been filed more than nine years late.

Legal Principle(s)

The Dispute Tribunal is competent to rule on issues of appeal only if the appeal to the former Joint Appeals Board was timely. ��AT has been strictly enforcing and will continue to strictly enforce the various time limits.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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

Sanbar

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement