��DT/2012/105

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

Receivability/Waive or suspend MEU deadlines: It has been established in the ��DT and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (��AT) jurisprudence as well in the provisions of the ��DT Statute that the ��DT does not have the power to suspend or waive deadlines regardingtime limits for management evaluation. The Tribunal, being a creature of statutory law, cannot go beyond its mandate.If there was concrete evidence to show that the Ombudsman was seized of the matter within the stipulated time limits and if there was evidence showing the date on which the Ombudsman acknowledged receipt of the matter and the period for which he worked on it for purposes of mediation, the Tribunal would be in a position to consider, not whether it can waive deadlines for management evaluation, but whether indeed the relevant period had effectively extended the deadline for management evaluation and consequently for approaching the Tribunal.The Application in this case is not receivable and the Tribunal consequently lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it. Recommendation: It appears that substantive justice for the Applicant may have fallen through the cracks in the formal and informal justice systems and consequently eluded her for more than a decade, it has become necessary for the Secretary-General in his good offices to take a compassionate view to these issues. While this Tribunal has no capacity to review the judgment of the former ��AT or indeed the decisions of the JAB made about ten years before the new internal justice system came into being, it is compelled, bearing in mind the special circumstances in this matter, to recommend it to the Secretary-General for sympathetic review with a view to bringing substantive justice and closure to it. This recommendation is made bearing in mind the special measures that have been put in place with regards to the protection of whistle-blowers who risk their jobs, professional lives and livelihoods by courageously seeking to expose wrong-doings within the Organization.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant is contesting the decision of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) dated 26 August 2010 not to take action on her request to investigate allegations of irregularities in the ��-Habitat, which she first reported in 1995.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome

Dismissed as not receivable

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

Dzuverovic

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement