2019-惇蹋厙AT-962

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

As preliminary matters, 惇蹋厙AT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant＊s in-session motion, viewed by 惇蹋厙AT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the Appellant sought to re-argue and re-try the merits of his application to 惇蹋厙DT. For Job Openings 2016/038 and 2016/26, 惇蹋厙AT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General extended the management evaluation or specified conditions for extending it. 惇蹋厙AT held there was no evidence of an implied extension in the form of any settlement negotiations or mediation process conducted by 惇蹋厙OMS. 惇蹋厙AT held that the Appellant＊s requests for assistance from 惇蹋厙OMS alone were not sufficient to extend the deadline for requesting management evaluation. For Job Opening 87684, 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙DT had erred in reversing the extension of time to file an application which it had previously granted and, as a result, in finding that the application was time-barred. Noting that the Appellant had relied in good faith on the extension and prepared and filed his application by the new deadline, 惇蹋厙AT held that it would be manifestly unreasonable to reverse the extension on different grounds to the detriment of the Appellant as it resulted in the application being time-barred and dismissed. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal regarding Job Openings 2016/038 and 2016/026. 惇蹋厙AT upheld the appeal regarding Job Opening 87684, remanding the matter to 惇蹋厙DT for a determination of the application on its merits.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant applied for three positions for which he was not selected. He contested these non-selection decisions before 惇蹋厙DT. 惇蹋厙DT held that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae because he had not filed a timely request for management evaluation.

Legal Principle(s)

Only the Secretary-General has the discretion to extend the deadline for management evaluation.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙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

Amineddine

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement