2019-��AT-968

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

On the matter of the deduction of 7,000 Euros paid to the Appellant��s ex-wife from his final emoluments, ��AT agreed with the ��DT��s finding that the Appellant��s application was not receivable ratione materiae, although for different reasons than those given by ��DT. ��AT held that the Appellant filed his request for management evaluation outside of the time limit and that therefore his application was not receivable ratione materiae. ��AT held that it was clear from the facts that the Appellant knew and had expressly accepted that this payment to his ex-wife would be deducted from his final emoluments. On the matter of the deduction of 2015 dependency benefits from the Appellant��s final emoluments, ��AT held that the Appellant��s application was not receivable ratione materiae for failure to request a management evaluation within the time limit. On the matter of the recovery of CHF11,996. 49, ��AT held that the Organisation lawfully recovered this overpayment which clearly resulted from an administrative error. ��AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ��DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the amount paid to him against his final emoluments, in connection with the payment of dependency benefits to his ex-wife and daughter, and the Administration��s request to recover the alleged overpayment. ��DT dismissed the application, partly on receivability and partly on the merits.

Legal Principle(s)

The Administration has the right and duty to correct its own errors.

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

Fortis

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement