- Actions pertaining to administrative decisions concerning human resources shall be initiated within sixty days from the date of acquiring certain knowledge of the decision. The basis for that?

- Grievances against administrative penalties issued by the Violations Committee must be lodged before the Grievances Committee within two weeks from the date of notification of the decision. The basis for that?

- Objecting to the decision of the Grievances Committee before the Objections Committee is permissible within three weeks of informing the complainant of the decision. The basis for that?

- The sixty-day timeframe for initiating an appeal before the court following the notification of the Objections Committee’s decision regarding cancellation.

- The contested ruling, declaring the case inadmissible despite its timely filing, is asserted to have misapplied the law and, therefore, warrants reversal.

In the context of the facts presented, as elucidated in both the contested ruling and the remaining documents of the cassation, the appellant initiated Suit No. 161 of 2020 in the Abu Dhabi Federal Plenary Administrative Court on 6/1/2020. In this suit, the appellant, acting as the plaintiff, sought a judgment to annul the contested sanction decision issued by the Violations Committee. The grounds for this legal action were rooted in her holding a position of (.................) in the fourth degree, and the contested decision aimed to impose a job grade demotion as a disciplinary measure for alleged violations attributed to her. Subsequently, she pursued a grievance before the Grievances Committee, which, in turn, opted not to accept the grievance. Following this, the appellant lodged an objection to the decision of the Grievances Committee before the Objections Committee, which, in its determination, opted to reject her objection. The appellant contends that the contested decision contravened the law and lacked a valid rationale, asserting that the attributed violations were inaccurately levied against her. The legal relief sought by the appellant is the annulment of the contested decision.

In the session held on 29/9/2020, the court rendered a decision not to hear the case on the grounds of it being filed after the stipulated deadline. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the appellant pursued an appeal in Appeal No. 166 of 2020. Subsequently, in the session convened on 22/12/2020, the Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and affirmed the initial ruling. Consequently, the appellant initiated the current cassation proceedings.

Following the cassation hearing in the Council Chamber, the court found it valid for consideration and scheduled a session for further deliberation. The appellant asserts two grounds for the appeal. In the primary contention, she objects to the contested ruling, contending that it violated the law by concluding that the case should not be heard due to its purported late filing. She argues that she filed the lawsuit on 1/6/2020 within the sixty-day timeframe designated for appealing the cancellation. This timeframe commenced subsequent to the issuance of the Objections Committee’s decision on 5/5/2020. Thus, according to the appellant, the lawsuit was indeed filed within the prescribed period, warranting a reversal of the judgment.

This objection is substantiated and holds merit, since in accordance with Article 116/1 of Federal Decree-Law No. 11 of 2008 on Human Resources, legal actions related to administrative decisions implemented under the provisions of this Decree-Law shall be subject to a statutory limitation, barring the initiation of a lawsuit after a period of sixty days from the date of acquiring definite knowledge of the decision. However, with specific regard to administrative penalties, the legislator has conferred authority upon the concerned party to file a grievance against the decision of the Violations Committee before the Grievances Committee within a stipulated period of two weeks from being notified of the said decision, as specified in Article 102 of the Implementing Regulation accompanying the aforementioned law. Furthermore, the legislator also permits the lodging of an objection to the decision of the Grievances Committee before the Objections Committee within three weeks of being notified of the aforementioned decision, pursuant to Article 105 of the same Regulation.

In light of the aforementioned legal provisions, the concerned party has three procedural avenues available. The first method allows for a direct appeal before the court challenging the decision of the Violations Committee within sixty days from the date of certain knowledge of the said decision, without resorting to the Grievances Committee, as explicitly provided for in Article 102. The second method involves filing a grievance against the decision of the Violations Committee before the Grievances Committee within two weeks of being informed of the said decision, thereby interrupting the time limit for appealing the cancellation. Consequently, the sixty-day period designated for the appeal begins anew. The third method permits the objection to the decision of the Grievances Committee before the Objections Committee within three weeks from the date of informing the concerned party of the said decision, similarly interrupting the period for appealing the cancellation. Consequently, the sixty-day period specified for appealing the cancellation before the court commences from the date of being informed of the Objections Committee’s decision.