Decisions made prior to 2 April 2009 are not excluded from being challenged before the Dispute Tribunal. Outcome: The application was held to be receivable and the motion to dismiss was denied. The instant case was also held to be exceptional, deserving of the waiver and extension of the time limits. The staff member was granted two weeks to file and serve a revised application.
Motion for extension of time was refused. Abuse of process of the Tribunal.
The Dispute Tribunal may suspend or waive the deadlines for the filing of applications imposed by the Statute and Rules of Procedure, but may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning management evaluation because this is the prerogative of the Secretary-General.The drafters of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal intended that all applications to the Tribunal would be subject to the rules under which this Tribunal operates. Therefore, pursuant to Article 8.3 of the Statute, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the deadlines for the filing of requests for...
Pursuant to Article 10.1 of the Rules of Procedure, a respondent that fails to file its reply on time is barred from taking part in the proceedings, except with the permission of the Dispute Tribunal. In this particular case, to attain a fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties it was necessary for the respondent to file a reply. Outcome: The judge exercised her discretion pursuant to Articles 10.1 and 19 of the Rules of Procedure to grant leave to the respondent to take part in the proceedings and to file its reply out of time.
Transferred JAB cases are governed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Decisions of the Administrative Tribunal on exceptional circumstances are wrong and should not be followed. Ignorance of the law held not relevant. Where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute is ambiguous, interpretation should preserve rights and uphold justice so far as the language permits. Outcome: The appeal was submitted within time and is receivable.
On consideration of the totality of the applicant¡¯s particular situation, the Dispute Tribunal held it was an exceptional case with exceptional reasons justifying an extension of time. An extension of time to file was granted.
The question of waiver of time limits applicable to transferred cases is governed by Article 8.3 of the Statute rather than by Staff Rule 111.2(f). A request for an administrative review or management evaluation is mandatory in the present case. With regard to section 1.4 of ST/SGB/2009/11, the Applicant cannot be considered to have satisfied the requirement to submit a request for management evaluation as provided for in Article 8 paragraph 1 (c) of the Statute.
Under the given circumstances, the application for an extension of time could not be considered as an application on the merits. No exceptional circumstances for an extension of time could be found. Lack of legal counsel normally does not constitute an exceptional circumstance. Since the Applicant had learned one month before the end of the time limit that OSLA would not take her case, it was appropriate and reasonable for the Applicant to submit an application by herself within the time limits.
The Respondent submits that the contested decision was expressed in a letter dated 3 August 2001 and the claim is therefore time-barred as the Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review, dated 2 May 2005, was filed out of time. The Applicant avers that her application is receivable as the final decision subject to appeal was expressed in the letter of the High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 30 March 2005. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the contested decision was made on 3 August 2001 and that the Applicant was notified of it, at the latest, on or before 15 April 2002. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not challenge the non-renewal of her contract in a timely manner and also did not rebut her final e-PAS rating as partially meeting expectations, which rating must be accepted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as final. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was aware, during her employment, of the criticisms concerning her performance and that it would have been reasonable for her to conclude that performance-related factors may have been considered by the Administration in deciding not to renew her contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that under Costa 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-036 it does not have the power to waive or...
