51Թ

UNDT/2009/060

UNDT/2009/060, Lutta

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

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.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant sought compensation for the substantive and procedural irregularities committed in the conduct of investigations against him, the resulting impact on his career advancement and the professional and moral injury to him caused by his having been negligently and wrongfully charged with drunk-driving.

Legal Principle(s)

The UNDT Statute and Rules of Procedure do not allow a Respondent to request for an extension of the time limit to submit a reply. The only available remedy for a Respondent who has not filed a reply in time is to “seek the permission of the Dispute Tribunal” to take part in the proceedings in accordance with article 10.1 of the Rules of Procedure. To have left the Respondent without any other option at all in cases of failure on his part to file a timely response to a claim would have been perceived as denial of fairness and against the equality of arms principle in proceedings before the Tribunal. The Respondent who finds himself outside the time limit for filing a reply should first seek the permission of the Tribunal to take part in the proceedings and to state the reasons why he should be granted such permission. This is so because by putting himself outside the requisite delay he is no longer considered to be part of the proceedings. If the Tribunal grants the Respondent’s motion and authorizes him to be part of the proceedings, the next stage is to determine whether the Respondent should be allowed to file a reply. The application by the Respondent for permission to participate in the; proceedings may also contain a motion for a belated filing of the reply under article 19 of the Rules.

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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.