Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that only circumstances beyond an applicant¡¯s control that prevented them from timely exercising the right of appeal may be considered ¡°exceptional circumstances,¡± justifying a waiver of the statutory time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an applicant¡¯s initial mistaken belief that decisions were lawful cannot be deemed to constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to appeal those decisions, especially when they had every means of obtaining information from the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded by the Appellant¡¯s arguments upon appeal and did not find any error in law or in fact in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Chairperson¡¯s advisement that there was no OHCHR-OHRM agreement did not constitute an ¡°exceptional circumstance,¡± constituting a waiver of the two-month time limit as provided for by former Staff Rule 111.2(f). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the recruitment procedures relating to 21 posts for which he was a candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed his application as time-barred, as he did not request a review of the contested administrative decision within two months as required by former Staff Rule 112.2(a) and no exceptional circumstances justified a waiver of the time limit.
Legal Principle(s)
Only circumstances beyond an applicant¡¯s control that prevented them from timely exercising the right of appeal may be considered ¡°exceptional circumstances,¡± justifying a waiver of the statutory time limit. An applicant¡¯s initial mistaken belief that decisions were lawful cannot be deemed exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to appeal those decisions.