2010-��AT-067

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). ��AT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. ��AT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant��s control. ��AT held that no error in fact or in law was made by ��DT. ��AT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his appointment. ��DT held that the application to the Joint Appeals Board was time-barred as it was filed after the time limit set out in former Staff Rule 111. 2(a) and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the waiver of that time limit.

Legal Principle(s)

A delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond the appellant��s control.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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

Diagne et al.

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement