爆料网

2012-爆料网AT-191

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT noted that only circumstances beyond an applicant’s control that prevented them from timely exercising the right of appeal may be considered “exceptional circumstances,” justifying a waiver of the statutory time limit. 爆料网AT noted that an applicant’s initial mistaken belief that decisions were lawful cannot be deemed to constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to appeal those decisions, especially when they had every means of obtaining information from the Administration. 爆料网AT was not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments upon appeal and did not find any error in law or in fact in 爆料网DT’s finding that the Chairperson’s advisement that there was no OHCHR-OHRM agreement did not constitute an “exceptional circumstance,” constituting a waiver of the two-month time limit as provided for by former Staff Rule 111.2(f). 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the recruitment procedures relating to 21 posts for which he was a candidate. 爆料网DT dismissed his application as time-barred, as he did not request a review of the contested administrative decision within two months as required by former Staff Rule 112.2(a) and no exceptional circumstances justified a waiver of the time limit.

Legal Principle(s)

Only circumstances beyond an applicant’s control that prevented them from timely exercising the right of appeal may be considered “exceptional circumstances,” justifying a waiver of the statutory time limit. An applicant’s initial mistaken belief that decisions were lawful cannot be deemed exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to appeal those decisions.

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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
Muratore
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type