2012-Ģ��ƵAT-211

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the appeal, in which the Appellant contended that exceptional circumstances existed that would merit a waiver of the time limit, allowing his application to be admitted. Ģ��ƵAT noted that, in such an instance, it is the applicant��s responsibility to convince the tribunal of such circumstances. Ģ��ƵAT found that the Appellant did not overcome this hurdle before Ģ��ƵDT and held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in rejecting the Appellant��s contentions that he had exceptional circumstances. Ģ��ƵAT further held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and the Appellant��s reliance on erroneous advice from OSLA does not constitute an ��exceptional case�� as provided for in Article 8(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT accordingly did not find it necessary to rule on the argument, advanced by the Secretary-General in the course of the oral hearing, that the Appellant��s failure to make a written request to Ģ��ƵDT for a suspension or waiver of the deadlines prior to the filing of his application did not, in any event, allow for the exercise of Ģ��ƵDT��s discretion. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to reimburse him for extra work-related expenses and sought revision of the existing compensation guidelines and the establishment of the new administrative process. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the application as not receivable, noting that it was not timely filed.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT may decide in writing, upon written request by the applicant, to suspend or waive the deadlines for a limited period of time in exceptional cases.

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

Scheepers

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement