爆料网

2015-爆料网AT-543

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that there was no error in the 爆料网RWA DT decision that the Appellant did not challenge a discretionary administrative decision that breached the terms of his appointment, rather, he was challenging the rule providing for the manner in which separation benefits should be calculated, including the applicable interest rate. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not challenge an appealable administrative decision in that he did not contest a unilateral decision taken by the administration in a precise individual case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly held that the publication of interest rates is not a unilateral decision, but one of general application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly found that the Appellant’s application was time-barred as it was made two and a half years after the permissible filing deadline and he failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would have prevented him from filing on time. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the Appellant’s application was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the calculation of his benefits and sought payment for the shortfall. 爆料网RWA DT held that the application was not receivable and dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

An administrative decision is a unilateral decision taken by the administration in a precise individual case that produces direct legal consequences to the legal order. Ignorance of the Staff Rules and procedures related to the filings of the applications cannot be invoked as an excuse for failing to comply with deadlines.

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.