�山����

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 measures) either, since the applicant never had a “case” before the former �山����Administrative Tribunal that could have been transferred to the Dispute Tribunal. Whilst the former Administrative Tribunal had accepted to suspend the time limits to file an application, the applicant’s request for suspension of the time limits had been based on “negotiations” which ended in June 2008. As from July 2008, the applicant failed to act diligently at all material times in pursuing his claim and in so doing forfeited his rights to be heard. Assuming that the applicant’s former counsel is responsible for the delay in pursuing this case, the Tribunal reiterated its jurisprudence in Abu-Hawaila that it cannot and should not, except in rare situations, excuse an applicant for the failure of his or her counsel to successfully defend his or her case. Merits: The applicant’s new appointment with UNMIK was in accordance with the Organization’s rules concerning special mission assignments, which specifically exclude payment of post adjustment and MHA. There is no evidence that a promise was made or that assurances were given by the �山����to the effect that he would continue to receive post adjustment and MHA even if UNRWA decided to discontinue the reimbursable loan arrangement. If the applicant wanted to contest UNRWA decision not to renew his appointment and thus to discontinue the reimbursable loan, he should have availed himself of UNRWA internal recourse mechanisms. In any event, the Dispute Tribunal is not competent to review decisions taken by UNRWA since UNRWA does not fall within its jurisdiction.