2010-惇蹋厙AT-056

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT concurred with 惇蹋厙DT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. 惇蹋厙AT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to 惇蹋厙DT and raised it for the first time before 惇蹋厙AT. 惇蹋厙AT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the 惇蹋厙AT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to 惇蹋厙DT. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

惇蹋厙DT judgment: The Applicant contested the non-renewal of her appointment. 惇蹋厙DT held that her application was time-barred and rejected it. 惇蹋厙DT found no exceptional circumstances within the meaning of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f) that would justify a waiver of the time limit.

Legal Principle(s)

惇蹋厙AT will not admit additional evidence that was known to the party and could have, with due diligence, been presented to 惇蹋厙DT.

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙AT 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

Shakir

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement