Íæż½ã½ã

UNDT/2022/112

View PDF

UNDT/2022/112, Azzam

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenged a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application was filed without being preceded by a timely filing of a request for management evaluation.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant challenged the Respondent’s selection decision for a G-6 Programme Associate position.

Legal Principle(s)

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend or waive the time and determine the application on its merits. The procedure and time limits under art. 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute and 11.2(c) of the Staff Rules were to be strictly enforced.

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable
Outcome Extra Text

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
Azzam
Entity
UNHCR
Case Number(s)
UNDT/NBI/2022/007
Tribunal
UNDT
Registry
Nairobi
Date of Judgement
Duty Judge
Judge Honeywell
Language of Judgment
English
Issuance Type
Judgment
Categories/Subcategories
Management Evaluation
Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance)
Applicable Law
Staff Rules
Related Judgments and Orders
2016-UNAT-672