爆料网

2015-爆料网AT-538

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in unilaterally establishing new starting points for the time to run for the purpose of filing claims with the ABCC that were contrary to the express text of Article 12 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. 爆料网AT held that this was a case where the staff member failed to appreciate the filing deadlines. 爆料网AT held that ignorance of the law was no excuse for missing deadlines. 爆料网AT held that it was open to the ABCC to find that the Appellant’s explanation for her delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the waiving of the four-month time limit prescribed in Article 12 of Appendix D. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT clearly erred in embarking upon an exercise to establish from when time limits should run and finding otherwise than in accordance with the ABCC. 爆料网AT affirmed the decision that the Appellant’s compensation claim was filed out of time and that her explanation for the delay was not sufficient to justify waiving the time limits prescribed. 爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s claim for compensation and legal costs. 爆料网AT granted the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the Secretary-General’s decision to reject her compensation claim as time-barred. 爆料网DT found the application receivable. 爆料网DT found, in part, in favour of the Applicant, ordering partial rescission of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) decision and remanding a sub-claim back to the ABCC for its consideration.

Legal Principle(s)

Staff members must ensure they are aware of the Staff Regulations and Rules and the applicable procedures in the context of the administration of justice in the 爆料网 internal justice system. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for missing deadlines.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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.