2013-��AT-296

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held, without examining the merits, that a staff member cannot create a platform to re-open the possibilities of challenging an administrative decision not impugned at the time it was issued for reasons that did not exist at that time. ��AT held that the reconsideration sought by the Appellant was based on the analysis of administrative decisions that had no direct or particular effects on him, but on other staff members. On the allegation that a second decision was taken at a later date, ��AT held that it was nothing more than a consequence of the earlier decision, which had already been implemented and executed by both parties; thus, it was not independent, nor could it recreate for the staff member the right to challenge it through management evaluation or before ��RWA DT. ��AT held that ��RWA DT did not err when it considered that the request for administrative review was time-barred, and the appeal was not receivable due to that reason. ��AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ��RWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested his placement on Special Leave Without Pay in order to attend training in the United States. ��RWA DT dismissed his application as not receivable, as he did not request a review of the decision until almost two years later.

Legal Principle(s)

A staff member cannot create a platform to reopen the possibilities of challenging an administrative decision not impugned at the time it was issued for reasons that did not exist at the time.

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

Rabee

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement