Judgment No. 3687
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant impugns WHO’s decision to terminate her appointment for health reasons.
termination of employment; health reasons; complaint dismissed
The case law [...] recognizes that in very limited circumstances an exception may be made to the rule of strict adherence to the relevant time limit. The circumstances identified in the case law are: “where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time or where the organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her so as to do him or her harm, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith” (see Judgment 3405, under 17; citations omitted); and “where some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or where [the staff member concerned by that decision] is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he or she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken” (see Judgment 3140, under 4; citations omitted).
It must also be added that a later discovery after the expiry of the time limit for appealing the challenged decision of an irregularity that might have rendered the decision unlawful does not in principle have a bearing on the requisite adherence to the time limit (see, for example, Judgment 3405, under 16).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3140, 3405