2014-惇蹋厙AT-470

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the 惇蹋厙DT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. 惇蹋厙AT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. 惇蹋厙AT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. 惇蹋厙AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law or fact in 惇蹋厙DT＊s decision that her application was not receivable ratione temporis. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her contract. 惇蹋厙DT dismissed her application as not receivable ratione temporis, as she delayed filing her application by about five and a half months.

Legal Principle(s)

惇蹋厙AT repeatedly and consistently strictly enforces the time limits for filing applications and appeals. It is the staff member＊s responsibility to ensure that they are aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the 惇蹋厙 and ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse.

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

Kissila

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement