2022-��AT-1247

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that the Appellant��s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. ��AT held that ��RWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. ��AT held that to allow the Appellant��s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an administrative decision because it lacks finality would worsen the legal position of staff members as they could not challenge such postponement actions before the Tribunals. ��AT also held that, even if the postponement of a request for reclassification was not an administrative decision, the Appellant��s application was still irreceivable. ��AT dismissed the appeal and confirmed the ��RWA DT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Appellant contested the decision to put the reclassification of her post on hold. ��RWA DT dismissed the application as not receivable ratione materiae as the Appellant had not submitted her request for decision review within the time-limit.

Legal Principle(s)

Issues which were not raised before the first instance tribunal cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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

Rania Mohammed Dajani

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement