爆料网

2013-爆料网AT-384

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. 爆料网AT noted that it was technically improper for 爆料网DT to analyse the merits of the case after declaring the application time-barred. 爆料网AT held that even if the appeal had been receivable ratione temporis, the Appellant’s claim could not succeed. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant merely made statements and referred to facts that were not timely contested, without providing any evidence or contesting the reasoning of the first instance judgment. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to make a previously offered option of an agreed separation with indemnities available to him. 爆料网DT concluded that the application was not receivable as it was time-barred and his application lacked merit.

Legal Principle(s)

It is improper for 爆料网DT to consider the merits of a case after finding it time-barred.

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