2012-Ģ��ƵAT-275

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the Ģ��ƵDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had exceeded its competence and erred in waiving, on its own motion, the deadline for the staff member to file his application. Ģ��ƵAT held that the application was untimely and not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to summarily dismiss him. The Secretary-General filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of timeliness. Ģ��ƵDT issued a judgment on receivability No. Ģ��ƵAT/2011/216, denying the Secretary-General��s motion for summary judgment and concluding that the application was receivable. Ģ��ƵDT determined that it was empowered under Articles 19 and 35 of the Ģ��ƵDT RoP to waive on its own motion the statutory 90-day deadline for the Applicant to file his application and found ��exceptional circumstances�� existed to waive the deadline. The ��exceptional circumstances�� were Ģ��ƵICEF��s failure to respond to the Applicant��s repeated attempts to amicably resolve his situation and its failure to advise the Applicant, at the time he received the summary dismissal letter, of his review rights and the mechanisms for challenging his summary dismissal.

Legal Principle(s)

Unless the applicant has made a written request for waiver, Ģ��ƵDT cannot waive the filing deadline based on ��exceptional circumstances��; it is not competent to do so.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Cooke

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement