2017-��AT-794

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

Noting that it was clear that the intention was to revisit the earlier decisions by conducting a review of affected staff, to decide the matter afresh, and to issue new notifications, ��AT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. ��AT held that ��DT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. ��AT upheld the appeal, vacated the ��DT judgment, and remanded the case to ��DT for consideration on the merits.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment as a result of a comparative review process and a retrenchment exercise. In May 2015, the staff member was sent a letter that unequivocally informed her of the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract. In June, the Applicant was sent another letter informing her that her fixed-term appointment would not be renewed. ��DT considered that the June notification affirmed and reiterated the previous decision from May. Accordingly, using the May date as the date from which the time for a challenge of that decision ran, ��DT dismissed the application on the grounds that it was not receivable (ratione materiae) as the Applicant had not submitted her request for management evaluation within the stipulated time limit.

Legal Principle(s)

An administrative decision will have the effect of triggering the running of a time limit if it is intended to have a final effect in the form of direct legal consequence on the rights and obligations of the staff member.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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

Afeworki

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement