2015-Ģ��ƵAT-538

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in unilaterally establishing new starting points for the time to run for the purpose of filing claims with the ABCC that were contrary to the express text of Article 12 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Ģ��ƵAT held that this was a case where the staff member failed to appreciate the filing deadlines. Ģ��ƵAT held that ignorance of the law was no excuse for missing deadlines. Ģ��ƵAT held that it was open to the ABCC to find that the Appellant��s explanation for her delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the waiving of the four-month time limit prescribed in Article 12 of Appendix D. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT clearly erred in embarking upon an exercise to establish from when time limits should run and finding otherwise than in accordance with the ABCC. Ģ��ƵAT affirmed the decision that the Appellant��s compensation claim was filed out of time and that her explanation for the delay was not sufficient to justify waiving the time limits prescribed. Ģ��ƵAT rejected the Appellant��s claim for compensation and legal costs. Ģ��ƵAT granted the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the Secretary-General��s decision to reject her compensation claim as time-barred. Ģ��ƵDT found the application receivable. Ģ��ƵDT found, in part, in favour of the Applicant, ordering partial rescission of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) decision and remanding a sub-claim back to the ABCC for its consideration.

Legal Principle(s)

Staff members must ensure they are aware of the Staff Regulations and Rules and the applicable procedures in the context of the administration of justice in the Ģ��Ƶ internal justice system. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for missing deadlines.

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

Bezzicheri

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement