��DT/2017/041

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The Applicant was informed in February 2007 that his promotion must follow a competitive recruitment process. The contention that he should have been promoted to the G-5 level at the time could and should have been challenged when the Applicant received formal notification of his retroactive promotion in October/November 2007. He did not. He also did not challenge the Respondent��s letter of 6 May 2015.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant challenged the decision that his request for compensation at the G-5 level would not be reviewed any further.

Legal Principle(s)

It is settled law that timelines as stipulated in article 7.1(a) of the ��DT Rules of Procedure and article 8.1 of the ��DT Statute must be strictly observed. �� Appeals Tribunal (��AT) has clearly and consistently pronounced on the necessity of strict adherence to filing deadlines. If a request for management evaluation is time-barred, the application before the ��DT is not receivable because the ��DT Statute forbids waiver of time limits for management evaluation. ��AT has also affirmed that an untimely request for management evaluation bars applications before the Tribunal even if management evaluation was actually received. Article 8.4 of the Tribunal��s Statute stipulates that an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant��s receipt of the contested administrative decision. The principle governing the issue of whether a reiteration of a decision already made constitutes a new decision for the purposes of article 7.1(a) of the ��DT Rules of Procedure and article 8.1(d)(i) of the ��DT Statute is settled.

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

Said

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement