51Թ

011 (NBI/2025)

011 (NBI/2025), Cynthia Cline

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had provided sufficient information to justify the granting of a brief extension of the deadline to file her application. A broken computer had the effect of preventing even the most essential access. The Tribunal considered that it was in the interest of justice to permit the brief extension to allow the Applicant to have her case heard on the merits, and that the Respondent would not be prejudiced by such extension of the deadline.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant requested an extension of time to file an application challenging the decision to remove her functions as ascribed in her job description and her reassignment to the Division of Administration. The Applicant cited inability to complete and file its application in a timely manner due to problems and damage to the computer being used.

Legal Principle(s)

Article 8.3 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute stipulates that the Tribunal may decide in writing, upon written request by the Applicant, to suspend or waive the deadlines for a limited period of time, and only in exceptional cases. Article 7.5 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure also provides that, in exceptional cases, an applicant may submit a written request to the Tribunal seeking suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits for filing an application. Any such request shall succinctly set out the exceptional circumstances that, in the view of the applicant, justify the request. Article 19.1 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may at any time, either on an application of a party or on its own initiative, issue any order or give any direction which appears to a judge to be appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties. If an Applicant requests a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits, the Applicant bears the burden of establishing “that the circumstances responsible for the delay were "exceptional". “Exceptional” means other than, or out of, the ordinary, or unusual. The circumstances are “the exception rather than the rule” as it is sometimes expressed. The interests of justice are the paramount factor in the exercise of this discretion and that involves a balancing of the rights and interests of the parties. Considerations of whether either will be prejudiced by the grant or refusal of an order, and if so theextent and effect of such prejudice, will be a relevant consideration. So too is the length of any delay relevant, and where the responsibility for the delay lies.

Outcome

Other motion 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 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.

Individual Party
Cynthia Cline
Entity
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Order
Duty Judge
Language of Order
Appeal Status
Appealed
Issuance Type
Categories/Subcategories