2020-UNAT-1035, Gelsei

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

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 he and his representative had no responsibility. UNAT held that UNDT erred in fact and law (resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision) in refusing the application for extension of time. UNAT extended or waived the time limit and deemed the application disputing the disciplinary sanctions to have been filed on time. UNAT allowed the appeal, reversed the UNDT judgment, and remanded the case to UNDT for a decision on the merits.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

UNDT dismissed the application to extend time and the substantive application on the basis that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances.

Legal Principle(s)

The degree of lateness when a party fails to meet a filing deadline before UNDT is not irrelevant for the purpose of determining an application to suspend or waive that time limit. While the length of a delay in missing a deadline is irrelevant to the preliminary question of exceptional circumstances, if exceptional circumstances are established, the length of a delay may then become a relevant factor in deciding whether to exercise UNDT’s discretion to waive the breach and the particular nature of that waiver, for example how long the party then has to file. The relevant circumstances in which such an extension or waiver should be allowed by UNDT are variable and highly fact-dependent, so long as they are “exceptional”. Interests of justice are the paramount factor in the exercise of the discretion to suspend or waive time limits. Whether either party will be prejudiced by the grant or refusal of an order, and the extent and effect of such prejudice, will be a relevant consideration in deciding whether to suspend or waive time limits.

Outcome

Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at [email protected].

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Gelsei

Entity

UNHCR

Case Number(s)

2020-1350

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York