Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

In Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment No. 037, Sethia (2010), the Tribunal set out the applicable law in determining whether the time limits imposed by the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal will be waived. In the present case, having considered the applicant¡¯s submissions, the Tribunal finds that they do not satisfy the requirement of ¡°exceptional¡± in Article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The applicant did not abide by the time limits for filing his application with the JAB and subsequently, in his appeal against the JAB¡¯s findings, he also failed to abide by the time limits for filing his application...

In Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment No. 037, Sethia (2010), the Tribunal set out the applicable law in determining whether the time limits imposed by the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal will be waived. In the present case, having considered the applicant¡¯s submissions, the Tribunal finds that they do not satisfy the requirement of ¡°exceptional¡± in Article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The applicant¡¯s physical presence was not required in the U.S. for her to file her Application.

With respect to the decision to reject his request for leave, the application is irreceivable as no management evaluation was submitted. In general, the whole application is time-barred. No exceptional circumstances could be found. Even after the applicant's sick leave ended, more than three months elapsed before the applicant submitted his application.

Receivability: A decision which does not merely confirm a previous decision, but shows that in the meantime, efforts have been made by the Administration to find an alternative arrangement and sets a new deadline, may be considered as a new decision, which has the effect of setting a new time limit for requesting administrative review. In accordance with article 8.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the three-year time limit cannot be extended, even in exceptional cases within the meaning of article 8.3 of the Statute. The Dispute Tribunal is not competent to hear the case under article 2.7 (transitional...

In its Judgment 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-029, El-Khatib, the Appeals Tribunal upheld the jurisprudence of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal whereby only circumstances beyond the applicant¡¯s control that prevented him from timely pursuit of his appeal can be regarded as exceptional. The fact that the applicant believed at first that the contested decision was lawful is not an exceptional circumstance, the more so as he had the possibility to obtain information on the applicable rules from the Administration. In El-Khatib, the Appeals Tribunal further recalled that ¡°candidates for a public post are...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment: The Applicant failed to comply with the two-month deadline stipulated in former staff rule 111.2(a) as he was formally notified of the non-renewal of his appointment on 4 February 2004 but did not request administrative review of the decision until 27 June 2008. Further, he failed to establish any ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± that prevented him from filing his application in a timely manner. The decision not to reimburse the Applicant for the travel costs he incurred as a result of his participation in the OIOS investigation: In...

[Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/GVA/2009/63 ]Contrary to what he contends, the applicant was not prevented from undertaking the separation procedures before the separation memorandum was issued. He was notified of the non-renewal of his contract nearly two months before his effective separation. Hence, the argument that the late issuance of the separation memorandum created such a situation that he was bound to work beyond the date of expiration of his appointment does not stand. The Organization offered him a reasonable chance to finalize the different separation formalities, both during the last two months of service...

Settlement offer v. management evaluation: The respondent¡¯s settlement offer was clearly and unequivocally marked ¡°PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY¡± (emphasis in the original). The indication ¡°for settlement purposes only¡± in block capitals at the top of the letter left no room for interpretation as to the purpose of the letter, which was not to respond to the applicant¡¯s request for a management evaluation. Inconsistency between article 8.1 (d) (i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and staff rule 11.4 (a). In accordance with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute art. 8.1, in order to be receivable, an...

Since the applicant did not comply with the time limits prescribed in former staff rule 111.2 (a), the Tribunal examined whether there were any exceptional circumstances within the meaning of former staff rule 111.2 (f) which prevented her from submitting a request for review in time.The Tribunal applied the definition of exceptional circumstances adopted by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and upheld by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in a number of judgments, i.e. circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. Outcome: The application was rejected as time-barred.

Outcome: The application was held to be out of time. The Tribunal did not find this case to be exceptional. The application was dismissed.