Article 7.5

The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for anonymity as the issue presented in his appeal was purely procedural and jurisdictional and did not involve any personal data which had to be protected.

The UNAT also denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that that it would not assist the Appeals Tribunal in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.

The UNAT held that because the Appellant filed his application 93 days after the receipt of the contested administrative decision, it was not receivable, absent waiver of the deadline of the UNDT. The UNAT observed that given...

UNAT held that UNDT’s decision on an Appellant’s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the UNAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. UNAT held, therefore, that UNDT’s decision on the Appellant’s request of extension could not be appealed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). UNAT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. UNAT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant’s control. UNAT held that no error in fact or in law was made by UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT, 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. UNAT held that UNDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. UNAT held that UNDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the UNDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the UNDT...

UNAT held that it could discern no error in UNDT’s computation of the applicable time limits. UNAT considered that the UNDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant’s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT found that UNDT did not address the staff members’ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into “incomplete” applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. UNAT held that UNDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the “equivalent” of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

UNAT held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. UNAT held that UNDT’s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant’s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. UNAT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant’s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...

Respondent’s Counsel filed a motion seeking an extension of the time limit to file the Respondent’s reply on several grounds, including exigencies of service. The Respondent was enjoined to submit a proper application requesting that he should be allowed to take part in the proceedings. The determination of whether he was going to be authorized to file a reply was going to be taken in the light of the Respondent’s motion.

Decisions made prior to 2 April 2009 are not excluded from being challenged before the Dispute Tribunal. Outcome: The application was held to be receivable and the motion to dismiss was denied. The instant case was also held to be exceptional, deserving of the waiver and extension of the time limits. The staff member was granted two weeks to file and serve a revised application.

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.