±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly established that the silence of the ±¬ÁÏÍøEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

Regarding the allegations that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law, fact, and procedure and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to her allegations of discrimination, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the oral and documentary evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact, and changed the outcome of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s allegations that she had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender or based on her family responsibilities and her expressed desire to work part-time. Regarding the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, under Article 11.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited ±¬ÁÏÍøDT from extending the deadline for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found that the application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that the Appellant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for suspension of action during the pendency of management evaluation was rightly declared not receivable as it was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed or wrongly exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the suspension of action. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the submissions by the parties did not require clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT questioned whether her case presented exceptional circumstances that would warrant the reopening of her case by the Secretary-General, as her application was not filed in a timely manner. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the appeal was not receivable as, notwithstanding her illness, she did not demonstrate such circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, in which the Appellant contended that exceptional circumstances existed that would merit a waiver of the time limit, allowing his application to be admitted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in such an instance, it is the applicant¡¯s responsibility to convince the tribunal of such circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant did not overcome this hurdle before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s contentions that he had exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and the Appellant¡¯s reliance on erroneous advice...