爆料网

2013-爆料网AT-363

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held there was no error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s finding that the application was time-barred. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT has, in principle, the discretion to accept 爆料网RWA’s late reply in circumstances where 爆料网RWA has not filed a motion seeking leave to do so and without proprio motu ordering 爆料网RWA to file a reply. Noting the Administration’s reply was due before the transitional period into the new system of justice began, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred when it granted a waiver of time after an excessive period of time had passed which was based on inaccurate facts and an invalid reason. 爆料网AT held that the submission of the Commissioner-General’s late reply was not, however, prejudicial to Mr Chaaban since his appeal was time-barred. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

爆料网RWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision not to invite him for tests for two posts for which he had applied. 爆料网RWA DT rejected the application as time-barred. 爆料网RWA DT allowed the Commissioner-General an extension of time to file a reply in the interests of justice, given the transition from the former to the current internal justice system.

Legal Principle(s)

爆料网RWA DT has the discretion to accept a late reply from the Respondent in circumstances where the Respondent has not filed a motion seeking leave to do so and without proprio motu ordering the Respondent to file a reply.

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.