2010-Ģ��ƵAT-055

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s decision on an Appellant��s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. Ģ��ƵAT held, therefore, that Ģ��ƵDT��s decision on the Appellant��s request of extension could not be appealed. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to review the grade that had been offered to him during his recruitment (FS-3/I). The Applicant filed an appeal to the Joint Appeals Board (JAB), although the JAB never acknowledged receipt of an appeal. The Applicant requested an extension of the deadline to avail himself of legal assistance. Ģ��ƵDT granted him a seven-week extension, bringing the deadline for submitting his application to 13 October 2009. The Applicant filed later a second request for an extension of the deadline to 12 January 2010. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant had not shown enough diligence in seeking legal advice during the additional time that he had been granted. Ģ��ƵDT concluded that the application constituted an abuse of the process and rejected the second request for an extension of time.

Legal Principle(s)

Article 8. 3 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 7.5 of the Ģ��ƵDT RoP do not confer any right upon the Applicant, but simply provide the option of requesting the Tribunal to suspend, waive or extend deadlines where exceptional circumstances can be shown. It is for the Tribunal to decide whether exceptional circumstances justify the request.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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.

Applicants/Appellants

Hijaz

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement