±¬ÁÏÍø

One of the elements that an application for suspension of action must show is that the contested decision ¡°appears prima facie to be unlawful¡±, i.e. that there is a reasonably arguable case that the contested decision is unlawful. A merely reasonable (hence legitimate in ordinary parlance) expectation of a particular outcome is not the same as a legitimate expectation that gives rise to any legal rights, and will be insufficient to establish reasonably arguable unlawfulness. Outcome: The Judge held that there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for concluding even on a prima facie level that...

As the Applicants did not respond at all to the Tribunal¡¯s requests, they therefore must be deemed to have abandoned the legal proceedings they instituted.Outcome: Application was dismissed.

As the Applicants did not respond at all to the Tribunal¡¯s requests, they therefore must be deemed to have abandoned the legal proceedings they instituted.Outcome: Application was dismissed.

Since former Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Tribunal pointed out that the application was time-barred under Staff Rule 111.2 (a).Outcome: Application was dismissed.

Conclusion on the duration of the suspension: ¡°the length of the suspension is to be decided by the Tribunal depending on the nature and circumstances of the case and this discretion of the Tribunal cannot and should not be subject to any form of control by the administration¡±. The decision ordered on 1 September 2009 that the suspension of the contested decision to terminate the employment of the Applicant on 3 September 2009 would remain in force until the final determination of the appeal should be read as it appears and that the Applicant should be paid half his salary from the date of the...

The Tribunal limited its review to the time-bar of the statement of appeal to the JAB in Februaiy 2009. Since fonner Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Morsy judgment and the broader definition of "exceptional cases" with reference to art. 8.3 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, art. 7.5 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP had to remain out of consideration. Neither the lack of knowledge of the English language nor ignorance of law could be accepted as "exceptional circumstances".Outcome: Application was dismissed.

When a time limit for filing an appeal expires on a Sunday, the appeal presented on the following Monday is admissible. Since, neither in his introductory appeal nor by subsequent briefs or orally at the hearing, the applicant made explicit reference to the arguments contained in the request for review which he made to the Secretary-General, the judge confines itself to examining the arguments expressly raised. While it is up to the judge to rule on the regularity of promotion procedures and on factual errors made by the administration, it is not for him to take the place of the High...

The judge makes his decision on the basis of all the documents in the file to the extent that all the parties are aware of them and have been able to discuss them. He must not exclude a document produced by a party unless it is submitted after the expiry of a time limit which he himself has fixed or which is imposed on him by the texts and only if this document is not likely to modify the outcome of the dispute, a hypothesis which requires the judge to grant the parties additional time to ensure compliance with the adversarial proceedings. The regulations in force for establishing the list of...

Transferred JAB cases are governed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Decisions of the Administrative Tribunal on exceptional circumstances are wrong and should not be followed. Ignorance of the law held not relevant. Where the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute is ambiguous, interpretation should preserve rights and uphold justice so far as the language permits. Outcome: The appeal was submitted within time and is receivable.

Pursuant to Article 10.1 of the Rules of Procedure, a respondent that fails to file its reply on time is barred from taking part in the proceedings, except with the permission of the Dispute Tribunal. In this particular case, to attain a fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties it was necessary for the respondent to file a reply. Outcome: The judge exercised her discretion pursuant to Articles 10.1 and 19 of the Rules of Procedure to grant leave to the respondent to take part in the proceedings and to file its reply out of time.