爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. 爆料网AT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that therefore 爆料网DT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before 爆料网AT for consideration. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s analysis of the applicable deadlines contained several legal errors and that there was no legal authority for 爆料网DT to commence the running of the sixty-day limitation period from the end of the Ombudsman’s settlement negotiations, rather than the date on which the staff member received notification of the administrative decision to be contested. 爆料网AT held that for 爆料网DT to commence the running of the sixty-day period in a manner inconsistent with Staff Rule 11. 2(c) violated the statutory prohibition in Article 8(3) against 爆料网DT suspending or waiving the deadline for seeking management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. 爆料网AT dismissed Mr Wu’s appeal, affirmed the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal, and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to grant him an unaccompanied shipment entitlement or a lump sum for non-removal allowance upon separation due to retirement. 爆料网DT found for the Applicant, issuing a default judgment.
Legal Principle(s)
When 爆料网DT acts in excess of its jurisdiction and authority, the aggrieved party may bring an appeal, regardless of whether the ruling is called an order or a judgment. 爆料网DT has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation.