51ÁÔÆæ

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 UN Administrative Tribunal, the UNDT 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. UNDT found that the applicant was informed of...

In UNDT Judgment No. 037, Sethia (2010), the Tribunal set out the applicable law in determining whether the time limits imposed by the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal will be waived. In the present case, having considered the applicant¡¯s submissions, the Tribunal finds that they do not satisfy the requirement of ¡°exceptional¡± in Article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The applicant did not abide by the time limits for filing his application with the JAB and subsequently, in his appeal against the JAB¡¯s findings, he also failed to abide by the time limits for filing his application...

In UNDT Judgment No. 037, Sethia (2010), the Tribunal set out the applicable law in determining whether the time limits imposed by the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal will be waived. In the present case, having considered the applicant¡¯s submissions, the Tribunal finds that they do not satisfy the requirement of ¡°exceptional¡± in Article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The applicant¡¯s physical presence was not required in the U.S. for her to file her Application.

With respect to the decision to reject his request for leave, the application is irreceivable as no management evaluation was submitted. In general, the whole application is time-barred. No exceptional circumstances could be found. Even after the applicant's sick leave ended, more than three months elapsed before the applicant submitted his application.

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 UNDT 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...

In its Judgment 2010-UNAT-029, El-Khatib, the Appeals Tribunal upheld the jurisprudence of the former UN Administrative Tribunal whereby only circumstances beyond the applicant¡¯s control that prevented him from timely pursuit of his appeal can be regarded as exceptional. The fact that the applicant believed at first that the contested decision was lawful is not an exceptional circumstance, the more so as he had the possibility to obtain information on the applicable rules from the Administration. In El-Khatib, the Appeals Tribunal further recalled that ¡°candidates for a public post are...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment: The Applicant failed 51ÁÔÆæ the two-month deadline stipulated in former staff rule 111.2(a) as he was formally notified of the non-renewal of his appointment on 4 February 2004 but did not request administrative review of the decision until 27 June 2008. Further, he failed to establish any ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± that prevented him from filing his application in a timely manner. The decision not to reimburse the Applicant for the travel costs he incurred as a result of his participation in the OIOS investigation: In...

[UNDT/GVA/2009/63 ]Contrary to what he contends, the applicant was not prevented from undertaking the separation procedures before the separation memorandum was issued. He was notified of the non-renewal of his contract nearly two months before his effective separation. Hence, the argument that the late issuance of the separation memorandum created such a situation that he was bound to work beyond the date of expiration of his appointment does not stand. The Organization offered him a reasonable chance to finalize the different separation formalities, both during the last two months of service...

Settlement offer v. management evaluation: The respondent¡¯s settlement offer was clearly and unequivocally marked ¡°PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY¡± (emphasis in the original). The indication ¡°for settlement purposes only¡± in block capitals at the top of the letter left no room for interpretation as to the purpose of the letter, which was not to respond to the applicant¡¯s request for a management evaluation. Inconsistency between article 8.1 (d) (i) of the UNDT Statute and staff rule 11.4 (a). In accordance with UNDT Statute art. 8.1, in order to be receivable, an...