Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµ

2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-478

Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements

Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered the Appellant¡¯s submission that she let the deadline elapse primarily because she was confused by the first sentence of the message she received from the Office of the Deputy High Commissioner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that this circumstance was previously considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s pronouncement was in accordance with the established case law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT rejected the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested a decision not to promote her and the lack of reply to her management evaluation request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT rejected her application as time-barred and did not find any evidence of exceptional circumstances to warrant a waiver or extension of the applicable time limits in her case.

Legal Principle(s)

Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT strictly enforces various time limits. Only circumstances beyond an applicant¡¯s control that prevented the applicant from exercising the right of appeal in a timely manner may be considered ¡°exceptional circumstances,¡± justifying a waiver of the statutory time limit.

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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT 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.