2020-惇蹋厙AT-1019

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT held that the Appellants failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the 惇蹋厙RWA DT and therefore the appeals were defective for that reason but considered the appeals given that the appellants were not legally represented. 惇蹋厙AT held that any error on a finding of fact of when the Appellants receive notification of the administrative decision did not result in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 惇蹋厙AT held that whether the administrative decision was the expressed verbal communication of the denial to provide compensation or was implied from the refusal or failure to respond, the Appellants did not meet the Area Staff Rule requirement that a request for review of the administrative decision be made within 60 days. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT correctly held that the applications in relation to the decision were not receivable. 惇蹋厙AT held that the 惇蹋厙RWA DT correctly determined that there was no identifiable request for decision review. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT did not err in fact or law in dismissing the applications. 惇蹋厙AT held that the applications to 惇蹋厙RWA DT were not receivable either ratione temporis or ratione materiae. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The staff members contested 惇蹋厙RWA＊s decision not to compensate them for ※casual hours§. 惇蹋厙RWA DT held the application was not receivable ratione temporis.

Legal Principle(s)

Whether a decision was communicated with sufficient gravitas is relevant to the question of whether an individual was notified. Where there is no written notification, it is incumbent on the body reviewing the matter to consider whether the circumstances surrounding the verbal communication constitute notification. The fundamental requirement for a request for decision review is that the request must be an unambiguous written request which clearly identifies the staff member and the contested decision.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

Outcome Extra Text

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 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

Houran et al

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement