爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not address the staff members’ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into “incomplete” applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the “equivalent” of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an extension of time were the equivalent of claims in an application; and summarily adjudged that the converted “applications” were not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had violated the staff members’ statutory rights to file an application and to have access to justice and, more importantly, violated the staff members’ right to due process of law. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and remanded the matter to 爆料网DT with directions to permit the staff members to file their applications.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicants requested an extension of time to file their applications against the decision of [OHRM/International Civil Service Commission] that the comprehensive salary survey conducted in New Delhi, India, in June 2013 found that the current salaries for locally-recruited staff were above the labour market. 爆料网DT reiterated that the decision to freeze the existing salary scales did not constitute an administrative decision for the purpose of art. 2. 1(a) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网DT decided by way of summary judgment that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae.
Legal Principle(s)
A request for an extension of time to file an application is not the same document as an application. 爆料网DT exceeds its competence and jurisdiction and commits errors in procedure when it determines that requests for an extension of time are the “equivalent” of applications.