Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2010/054

UNDT/2010/054, Avina

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The application is prima facie not receivable before the Ãå±±½ûµØDispute Tribunal as it was filed, without leave, on 2 February 2010 and relates to a decision taken on 10 January 2008. The application was not pending before the former Ãå±±½ûµØAdministrative Tribunal when it ceased operations on 31 December 2009 and accordingly, this is not a case transferred from the Ãå±±½ûµØAdministrative Tribunal. No extension or waiver is granted and the application is rejected in its entirety.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The applicant sought to appeal an administrative decision taken on 10 January 2008 and advised to him on 15 January 2008 that the Secretary-General had decided to accept the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee that the applicant be separated from service.

Legal Principle(s)

The Secretary-General’s bulletin on Transitional Measures does not exclude any decisions made prior to 2 April 2009 from being challenged before the Tribunal, if properly before it. The case and the reasons outlined in a request for an extension or waiver of time limits must show circumstances which are out of the ordinary, quite unusual, special, or uncommon; they need not be unique, unprecedented or beyond the applicant’s control. An applicant must show that he or she has not been negligent or forfeited the right to be heard by inaction or a lack of vigilance. A staff member cannot be said to hand over unreservedly the responsibility for ensuring the lodgment of an application upon the appointment of counsel. It is not necessarily unusual, special, or uncommon for a staff member to find that his rights have not been protected where he himself has not, fully aware of the consequences, taken any responsibility for them.

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable

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 oaj@un.org.

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

Applicants/ Appellants
Avina
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type