2017-��AT-805

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that the requirements for ��AT jurisdiction were fulfilled. ��AT held that the appeal to AJAB was time-barred and also, as the Appellant failed to request administrative review under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(5), the appeal to AJAB was not receivable ratione materiae. ��AT held that a later request by the Appellant was not relevant to the question of receivability because although the later request was phrased differently, it was based on the same factual and substantive situation that had already been assessed under her previous, unsuccessful request for review of her post description. ��AT held that the letter conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant and that therefore, the time limit to contest the decision began as of the date of receipt of that letter. ��AT held that the appeal rested upon misguided grounds and the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the AJAB committed an error of law when it considered that her appeal was not receivable. ��AT rejected the Appellant��s demand for referral for accountability due to the delay in the internal appeal process. ��AT held that there was no need to address the merits of the case. ��AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

ICAO Decision: The Applicant contested the decision to maintain the grade of her post. The ICAO issued a decision concurring with the ICAO Advisory Joint Appeals Board (AJAB) finding that the appeal was time-barred and accepting its unanimous recommendation that the appeal be rejected in its entirety.

Legal Principle(s)

The reiteration of an original administrative decision, if repeatedly questioned by a staff member, does not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines; rather, the time starts to run from the date on which the original decision was made.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

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

Gorelova

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement