Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As preliminary matters, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant¡¯s in-session motion, viewed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the Appellant sought to re-argue and re-try the merits of his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. For Job Openings 2016/038 and 2016/26, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General extended the management evaluation or specified conditions for extending it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no evidence of an implied extension in the form of any settlement negotiations or mediation process conducted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOMS. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s requests for assistance from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOMS alone were not sufficient to extend the deadline for requesting management evaluation. For Job Opening 87684, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in reversing the extension of time to file an application which it had previously granted and, as a result, in finding that the application was time-barred. Noting that the Appellant had relied in good faith on the extension and prepared and filed his application by the new deadline, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be manifestly unreasonable to reverse the extension on different grounds to the detriment of the Appellant as it resulted in the application being time-barred and dismissed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal regarding Job Openings 2016/038 and 2016/026. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal regarding Job Opening 87684, remanding the matter to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a determination of the application on its merits.