爆料网

2015-爆料网AT-566

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. 爆料网AT found no errors of fact or law by 爆料网DT in awarding costs against the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management evaluation of a written decision and, nevertheless, filed an application for judicial review; and (b) filed an application for judicial review when it was unreasonable for him to assume there was an implied decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err when it considered the huge volume of unnecessary documents filed to support the frivolous application as another factor supporting its conclusion that the Appellant manifestly abused the proceedings. 爆料网AT denied the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to conduct an investigation under ST/SGB/2008/5. 爆料网DT found the application not to be receivable ratione materiae.

Legal Principle(s)

A request for management evaluation of an administrative decision must be submitted by the staff member prior to bringing an application before 爆料网DT. A staff member must be familiar with the Staff Rules and understand his or her obligation to act in conformity with those rules. The date of an implied administrative decision is based on objective elements that both parties can accurately determine. Where 爆料网DT determines that a party has manifestly abused the proceedings before it, it may award costs against that party.

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.