UNDT/2017/046, Newland
The Applicant submitted that his initial “informal” enquiries into a possible review of his retirement age only began in July 2016, and that his first formal query of the date was not until 13 August 2016. It was difficult to imagine why the Applicant never thought to query the applicable position, or seek to have the mandatory retirement age in respect of himself reviewed, until five months before he was actually due to retire. Indeed, the Applicant had not sought to even challenge any of the Respondent’s submissions on receivability. While the Tribunal appreciated that a self-represented litigant could be handicapped in the handling of his case, particularly on technical aspects of the law, jurisdiction was an aspect of deliberation that the Tribunal had to be cognizant of and scrupulous about.
The Applicant challenged the Respondent’s decision to retire him at the age of 60 instead of 62.
In situations involving multiple representations from the Administration concerning generally the same subject matter, a determination as to when a final decision was made turns on the facts of the case. The jurisprudence has primarily examined whether the communication had the required form and whether it was issued by the appropriate authority and within the ambit of the powers that that authority has. While the Tribunal appreciates that a self-represented litigant may be handicapped in the handling of his case, particularly on technical aspects of the law, jurisdiction is an aspect of deliberation that a Tribunal must always be cognizant of and scrupulous about. The jurisprudence is consistent in that repeated restatements of the original decision will not alter the deadline for a challenge against the impugned decision and draws a distinction between “simple reiteration - or even explanation - of an earlier decision from the making of an entirely new administrative decision.”