2020-惇蹋厙AT-1060

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. 惇蹋厙AT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. 惇蹋厙AT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent＊s claim to award costs, 惇蹋厙AT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the appeal by the Appellant was a clear abuse of the appeal process. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and the claim for costs and affirmed the 惇蹋厙RWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant challenged the decision of the Administration not to change his official date of birth in their records from 1958 to 1959. This decision was made and communicated to him in November 1994, with reasons, and was not contested at that time. Subsequent to that, the Applicant received a number of communications from 惇蹋厙RWA showing his date of birth as 1958 without challenge. In 2018, having been informed that he would be separated from service on grounds of age, the Applicant again requested his date of birth to be changed, which was refused. 惇蹋厙RWA DT found that the Application was not receivable as the application was filed many years after the first decision to refuse to change his date of birth and more than the statutory maximum of three years within which such proceedings must be brought.

Legal Principle(s)

Reiteration of an original administrative decision, if repeatedly questioned by a staff member, does not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines; time starts to run from the date on which the original decision was made. Costs may only be awarded by 惇蹋厙AT if it considers that a party has manifestly abused the appeals process, which is a high threshold and, as such, the order is rarely made and usually only after a party is warned of such a consequence if the party＊s abuse of process continues. On deciding whether to award costs, 惇蹋厙AT may take into account other considerations, such as whether the Appellant was represented or whether there is an issue in the case which was not clear-cut.

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 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

Abu Rabei

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement