爆料网

2025-爆料网AT-1548

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

The 爆料网AT rejected the former staff member’s motion for anonymity, as it was filed out of time and without exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit.

The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网RWA DT did not err in concluding that the former staff member’s application was not receivable. The 60-day period within which she had to submit a request for decision review (RDR) began on 13 September 2023 and ended on 11 November 2023. As her RDR was lodged (i.e., received by the Agency) late on 11 November 2023, it was lodged within the statutory time limit. However, in the absence of a response from 爆料网RWA to that RDR within 30 days of its lodgment, she then had 90 days to file her application with the 爆料网RWA DT. This period expired at the end of 10 March 2024. Her application was filed on 11 March 2024, and was therefore out of time.

The 爆料网AT noted that no grounds for extending or waiving that time limit were advanced by the former staff member and, in any event, the 爆料网RWA DT did not have the authority to unilaterally waive or extend for either the RDR or the filing of her application.

The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2024/017.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Before the 爆料网RWA DT, a former staff member of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (爆料网RWA or Agency), contested the decision of the Agency to separate her from service upon the expiry of her fixed-term appointment (FTA).

In its Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2024/017, the 爆料网RWA DT dismissed the former staff member’s application as not receivable because it was filed out of time.

Former staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

If different from the date on which it was transmitted by the staff member, a Request for Decision Review is considered lodged on the date when it is received by the Agency.

The 爆料网RWA DT does not have the authority to suspend, waive or extend the deadlines for decision review.

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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.