Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2013/169

UNDT/2013/169, A-Ali

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicants submitted that they were notified of the decision on 19 June 2013 upon receiving an email from the Director, Chef de Cabinet in response to a 29 May 2013 letter. Upon review, it was determined that the letter sent to the Secretary-General on 29 May 2013 included a 21 May 2013 statement by the Applicants that referred extensively to the budget which had been submitted on 9 May 2013. The requests for management evaluation were filed on 29 July 2013 which is more than 60 days after the 21 May 2013 statement that indicated that the Applicants were fully aware of the contested decision. The email of 19 June 2013 was the Organization’s notification of its refusal to consider the Applicants' latest proposal and not the notification that a budget for the biennium 2014–2015 had been submitted. The Tribunal finds that, at the very latest, the Applicants received notice of the 9 May 2013 publication of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2014–2015 on 21 May 2013. In line with the Appeals Tribunal’s case law, 21 May 2013 is the date by which the applicable time limits would have started to run, resulting in any request for management evaluation being due by 20 July 2013. The requests for management evaluation that led to this consolidated application were filed on 29 July 2013. Accordingly, the Applicants’ requests for management evaluation were not filed within the requisite period of 60 days. The applications by the 46 Applicants are dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

46 staff members in DGACM filed a consolidated application contesting the decision to submit a proposed programme budget to the General Assembly for the 2014–2015 biennium.

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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
A-Ali
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type