2015-UNAT-606, Hayek

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

As a preliminary matter, UNAT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant’s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General’s answer and denied the motion. UNAT held that the UNRWA’s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that UNRWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. On the Commissioner-General’s request for an award of costs, UNAT held that while the appeal was frivolous, it was not an abuse of process and therefore denied the request for an award of costs. UNAT denied the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his appointment. UNRWA DT dismissed the application as not receivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis.

Legal Principle(s)

An application to UNRWA DT is not receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision and UNRWA DT has no discretion to waive this time limit.

Outcome
Appeal dismissed on merits

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 [email protected].

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.