2021-惇蹋厙AT-1174

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the 惇蹋厙DT＊s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. 惇蹋厙AT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the 惇蹋厙DT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the 惇蹋厙DT Judgment, 惇蹋厙AT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such circumstances must normally exist when the time limit runs out. 惇蹋厙AT held that being ill at the time of receiving the management evaluation response is ordinarily insufficient to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. 惇蹋厙AT held that, contrary to the 惇蹋厙DT Judgment, there was no difference between the two applications filed by the Appellant because they raised identical legal issues, noting that the Appellant could not circumvent the provisions in the Staff Rules and the 惇蹋厙DT Statute by filing an application in which she requested to postpone the implementation of a disciplinary sanction to a later date. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙DT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Appellant contested the decision to separate her from service while she was on maternity leave, and to deny her request for maternity and sick leave. 惇蹋厙DT dismissed the application as not receivable ratione temporis.

Legal Principle(s)

Ignorance of time limits or a miscalculation of time limits cannot be accepted as exceptional circumstances to justify the waiving of time limits. Being ill at the time of receiving a management evaluation response is ordinarily insufficient to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify the waiving of time limits.

Outcome

Appeal granted

Outcome Extra Text

N/A

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

Hoyce Temu

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement