2010-UNAT-050/Corr.1

2010-UNAT-050/Corr.1, Nasr Ishak

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

In Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050, UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the UNDT Judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant’s appeal before the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050/Corr.1, UNAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT, however, maintained the other grounds for the rejection of the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to deny him a promotion to the P-5. UNDT found that the Applicant had not requested a further extension of the deadline of 19 December 2008 for filing the full statement of appeal. UNDT, therefore, considered that the appeal was abandoned under Article 10 of the RoP of JAB, and that it had to be removed from the list of appeals pending before JAB. UNDT held it was competent to rule on appeals submitted to JAB only if they were pending as of 1 July 2009, which was not the case in this instance. UNDT found that, as the appeal was inadmissible, the Applicant’s presence at the hearing would not have contributed to the settlement of the dispute. UNDT dismissed the application finding that it had been erroneously submitted to a tribunal lacking jurisdiction in the matter.

Legal Principle(s)

UNDT only has jurisdiction to hear pending matters, but not matters that had already been decided by the JAB or had been abandoned while pending a JAB hearing.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Nasr Ishak

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :