爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
Receivability: A decision which does not merely confirm a previous decision, but shows that in the meantime, efforts have been made by the Administration to find an alternative arrangement and sets a new deadline, may be considered as a new decision, which has the effect of setting a new time limit for requesting administrative review. In accordance with article 8.4 of the 爆料网DT Statute, the three-year time limit cannot be extended, even in exceptional cases within the meaning of article 8.3 of the Statute. The Dispute Tribunal is not competent to hear the case under article 2.7 (transitional measures) either, since the applicant never had a “case” before the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal that could have been transferred to the Dispute Tribunal. Whilst the former Administrative Tribunal had accepted to suspend the time limits to file an application, the applicant’s request for suspension of the time limits had been based on “negotiations” which ended in June 2008. As from July 2008, the applicant failed to act diligently at all material times in pursuing his claim and in so doing forfeited his rights to be heard. Assuming that the applicant’s former counsel is responsible for the delay in pursuing this case, the Tribunal reiterated its jurisprudence in Abu-Hawaila that it cannot and should not, except in rare situations, excuse an applicant for the failure of his or her counsel to successfully defend his or her case. Merits: The applicant’s new appointment with 爆料网MIK was in accordance with the Organization’s rules concerning special mission assignments, which specifically exclude payment of post adjustment and MHA. There is no evidence that a promise was made or that assurances were given by the 爆料网 to the effect that he would continue to receive post adjustment and MHA even if 爆料网RWA decided to discontinue the reimbursable loan arrangement. If the applicant wanted to contest 爆料网RWA decision not to renew his appointment and thus to discontinue the reimbursable loan, he should have availed himself of 爆料网RWA internal recourse mechanisms. In any event, the Dispute Tribunal is not competent to review decisions taken by 爆料网RWA since 爆料网RWA does not fall within its jurisdiction.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
In 2000, the applicant was appointed to serve as Legal Adviser (D-2) in 爆料网MIK, on a reimbursable loan from 爆料网RWA. At the time, he agreed in writing to forego any right to be reabsorbed by 爆料网RWA at the end of his assignment with 爆料网MIK. However, since his salary was administered by 爆料网RWA, he continued to receive the post adjustment payable for Gaza, as well as the applicable mobility and hardship allowance (MHA). In 2004, 爆料网RWA decided not to extend the applicant’s fixed-term appointment and thus to discontinue the reimbursable loan arrangement. The applicant was then hired by 爆料网MIK on a fixed-term appointment. Since this was a special mission assignment, he was only entitled to mission subsistence allowance in lieu of post adjustment and MHA. The applicant contested the decision to discontinue the payment of his post adjustment and MHA. As from January 2007, the applicant sought and obtained several extensions of time and a suspension of the time limits to file an application with the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal, but never actually filed an application before the former 爆料网AT ceased to accept cases and was abolished. It was not until March 2010 that the applicant filed with 爆料网DT a request for extension of time to file an application.
Legal Principle(s)
N/A