±¬ÁÏÍø

The Respondent submits that the contested decision was expressed in a letter dated 3 August 2001 and the claim is therefore time-barred as the Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review, dated 2 May 2005, was filed out of time. The Applicant avers that her application is receivable as the final decision subject to appeal was expressed in the letter of the High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 30 March 2005. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the contested decision was made on 3 August 2001 and that the Applicant was notified of it, at the latest, on or before 15 April 2002. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant...

The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the transfer decision was arbitrary or based on improper motives. Administrative review/management evaluation: Requests for administrative review or management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process. In the case at hand, the only decision that was the subject of a request for management evaluation, and that is therefore properly before the Tribunal, is the decision to transfer the Applicant laterally from Cairo to Abu Dhabi. The Applicant¡¯s arguments regarding the unlawfulness of the decision to abolish his post and of...

Inexplicably, the JAB in its report sua sponte addressed, as a formal issue before it, the handling of a privileged and confidential letter (¡°Confidential Letter¡±) that the Applicant¡¯s Counsel had sent to the Under-Secretary-General for OIOS (¡°USG¡±) regarding the pending JAB litigation. The JAB refused the Applicant¡¯s non-selection claim, but found that the Respondent owed the Applicant an apology for forwarding the Confidential Letter to some staff members. The Respondent subsequently affirmed the non-selection decision, but rejected the issuance of an apology regarding the distribution of...

The Tribunal dealt with the notion of ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± in the light of the jurisprudence of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the ±¬ÁÏÍø Appeals Tribunal. It reaffirmed that ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± are those circumstances that are outside the control of the applicant. The Tribunal considered whether it could find any exceptional circumstances, as alleged by the Applicant that could justify a waiver of the receivability requirements, pursuant to staff rule 111.2 (f) of ST/SGB/1999/5 of 3 June 1999. Initially the Applicant submitted before the JAB that the fact that...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant did not challenge the non-renewal of her contract in a timely manner and also did not rebut her final e-PAS rating as partially meeting expectations, which rating must be accepted by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT as final. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant was aware, during her employment, of the criticisms concerning her performance and that it would have been reasonable for her to conclude that performance-related factors may have been considered by the Administration in deciding not to renew her contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that under Costa 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-036 it does not have the power to waive or...

This Application is not receivable and is additionally frivolous and vexatious.

Exceptional circumstances: Circumstances beyond the control of the applicant that prevented him/her from submitting an appeal in time.

The Tribunal sought to find whether there were any exceptional circumstances warranting a waiver of the receivability requirements. In the light of the jurisprudence of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT reaffirmed that ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± are those circumstances that are outside the control of the applicant. In the present matter, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had totally failed to establish that he was hampered by exceptional circumstances to pursue his case with due diligence. The Tribunal found that the matter was time-barred.

The applicant (but not his counsel) received a copy of the letter on 1 December 2008 and therefore had until 2 March 2009 to file his application. However, his application was dated 30 June 2009, or 120 days past the deadline, and it was received by the former Administrative Tribunal only on 6 July 2009. The respondent submitted as a preliminary matter that the application was time-barred. The applicant contended that his counsel had not been notified of the decision by the Administration and therefore counsel was unable to file a timeous appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the applicant was informed of...

The Tribunal is not seized of an intelligible application. The applicant has failed to identify the impugned administrative decision or decisions for which he is seeking relief. He has also failed to identify any steps taken by him to seek administrative review of the impugned administrative decisions. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 (1) (a) and Article 8(1) of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT or the equivalent provisions of the Statute of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal to consider the application. Second, the applicant has failed to comply with two orders of the...