Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2014/070

UNDT/2014/070, Gallo

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal’s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the applicable time limits for the filing of the application were not reset within the meaning of the Appeals Tribunal’s jurisprudence in Neault. Considering that the Applicant did not request a waiver of the applicable time limits and that he did not provide any exceptional circumstances warranting a suspension/waiver/extension of time for the filing of his application, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the claim.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contests the content of his end-of-year appraisal and the decision of the rebuttal panel following its review of his complaint thereto. The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal’s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.

Legal Principle(s)

Article 8.3 of the Tribunal’s Statute and 7.5 of its Rules of Procedure state that the Tribunal may only, in exceptional cases and upon receiving a written request by an applicant, suspend or waive for a limited period of time the deadline by which an application has to be filed before it.

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
Gallo
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type