2019-��AT-925

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT considered the Secretary-General��s appeal and Ms Kortes�� cross-appeal. ��AT held that the issue was whether ��DT erred in concluding that the Administration was estopped from correcting its mistake by finding that Ms Kortes was not eligible for ASHI, having advised her in 2011 that she could not avail herself of the buy-in option. Noting that the Administration��s error was to inform Ms Kortes that she could buy-in to ASHI, based on a misunderstanding of the date she joined the Organisation, ��AT held that ��DT committed an error of law in coming to its conclusion that five years was sufficient to find that the Administration should be estopped from correcting its error. Noting that both parties were to blame for the situation that arose and that estoppel is an equitable doctrine, ��AT held that it would be inequitable to stop the Administration from correcting an error to which Ms Kortes also contributed. ��AT held that Ms Kortes never had a right to qualify for ASHI and the Administration, therefore, had the right and duty to correct its administrative error. ��AT allowed the appeal, dismissed the cross-appeal, and vacated the ��DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision that she was ineligible for ASHI and had no buy-in option. ��DT rescinded the decision as unlawful.

Legal Principle(s)

Estoppel is an equitable doctrine; any person wishing to assert estoppel must come to court ��with clean hands��.

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 ��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

Kortes

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement