±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that under the provisions of Staff Rule 1. 2(b), staff members must comply with local laws and honour their private legal obligations, including, but not limited to, the obligation to honour orders of competent courts. However, the ST/SGB/1999/4 legal framework has to be interpreted within the context of the authorizing Staff Rule 3. 18(c)(iii), which grants the Administration discretionary authority, as is reflected in the use of the word ¡°may¡± in it, to make a proper and fair decision, in cases of indebtedness to third parties, under the proviso that a deduction for this purpose...

Although a series of resolutions of the General Assembly authorized the Secretary-General (provided a number of conditions were fulfilled) to reappoint under the I00 series of the Staff Rules mission staff whose service under 300 series contracts had reached the four-year limit, there had never been any legal obligation to do so. Even if the principles of Handelsman were applied to this case, no express promise for converting the appointments could be found. Furthemore the Applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies in a timely manner, since they did not initiate formal proceedings against...

The Tribunal limited its review to the time-bar of the request for review in July 2009. Since former Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Morsy judgment and the broader definition of "exceptional cases" with reference to art. 8.3 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, art. 7.5 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP had to remain out of consideration. The question whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has jurisdiction to waive time limits under the former system of internal justice - denied in Costa - could be left open, because no "exceptional circumstances" could be accepted. It was the Applicant's free will to await the outcome of the investigations, instead¡¤of...

As the Applicants did not respond at all to the Tribunal¡¯s requests, they therefore must be deemed to have abandoned the legal proceedings they instituted.Outcome: Application was dismissed.

As the Applicants did not respond at all to the Tribunal¡¯s requests, they therefore must be deemed to have abandoned the legal proceedings they instituted.Outcome: Application was dismissed.

Since former Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Tribunal pointed out that the application was time-barred under Staff Rule 111.2 (a).Outcome: Application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the appeal against the first decision was both time-barred and without merits, and that the appeal against the second decision was time-barred. The Tribunal further concluded that the respondent had properly exercised his discretionary authority in deciding not to refer the investigation panel¡¯s findings to the ASG/OHRM. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member repeats the same request to the Administration, only the first decision denying it is subject to appeal and the time limits for appeal start running from that first decision. Subsequent refusal decisions are...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

No exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of time limits prescribed in former staff rule 111.2 (a) could be found. The Applicant having served for long time in the Organization, she had ample opportunity to become familiar with the applicable rules. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the applicant to be acquainted with the rules on time limits. The Applicant was not induced into error by MEU response as to the outcome she could expect from a procedure before the Tribunal. The transition to the new justice system cannot be said to have affected the Applicant¡¯s ability to timely...

The Applicant¡¯s request for review is time-barred as far as the decision not to renew her appointment is concerned. As regards both the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract and the alleged mishandling of her visa request (even assuming that such mishandling could be linked to an administrative decision subject to appeal), the Applicant, in the absence of a response from the Secretary-General within two months of her request for review, had one month to file an appeal with the JAB. The appeal is time-barred as well. Given that the time limits prescribed in staff rule 111.2 (a) were not...