2010-Ģ��ƵAT-056

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT concurred with Ģ��ƵDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to Ģ��ƵDT and raised it for the first time before Ģ��ƵAT. Ģ��ƵAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant contested the non-renewal of her appointment. Ģ��ƵDT held that her application was time-barred and rejected it. Ģ��ƵDT found no exceptional circumstances within the meaning of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f) that would justify a waiver of the time limit.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵAT will not admit additional evidence that was known to the party and could have, with due diligence, been presented to Ģ��ƵDT.

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 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

Shakir

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement