爆料网

2016-爆料网AT-693

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the Appellant’s case did not constitute “exceptional cases,” so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the 爆料网AT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. 爆料网AT found no reversible error in 爆料网DT’s rejection of the Appellant’s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her application as non-receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed 爆料网DT’s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the imposition of a disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and with termination indemnity. The Applicant also submitted a Motion for extension of time to file an application. 爆料网DT rejected the motion for extension of time and dismissed her application as not receivable ratione temporis.

Legal Principle(s)

爆料网DT may decide in writing, upon written request by the applicant, to suspend or waive the deadlines for a limited period of time and only in exceptional cases. In exceptional cases, an applicant may submit a written request to the Dispute Tribunal seeking suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The degree of lateness has no relevance for the finding of exceptional circumstances. Whether a deadline is missed by several minutes, several hours or several days is irrelevant. A waiver of time can be justified under Article 8(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute only if the applicant shows that exceptional circumstances beyond his or her control prevented him or her from acting within the statutory time limits. Additional evidence may not be accepted on appeal if it could have been presented before the 爆料网DT.

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.