2011-Ģ��ƵAT-118

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT was not persuaded that Ģ��ƵDT erred in its judgment. Ģ��ƵAT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to Ģ��ƵDT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. Ģ��ƵAT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. Ģ��ƵAT held that the settlement negotiations between the parties did not toll the applicable time limits as the negotiations were not conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman. Ģ��ƵAT held that the power given to Ģ��ƵDT by Article 8(3) of its Statute to suspend or waive any deadlines except those for management evaluation, must be exercised with caution and under the discretion of the Trial Judge. Ģ��ƵAT held that the decision, in this case, was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning the finding by Ģ��ƵDT that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits in this case. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application as time-barred.

Legal Principle(s)

Exceptions to time limits and deadlines must be interpreted strictly and are not subject to extension by analogy.

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

Abu-Hawaila

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement