2015-罌厭弝ⅰAT-559

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT held, in agreement with 罌厭弝ⅰDT, that the decision of 23 April 2013 when the Appellant was informed that his post would be abolished on 31 December 2013, constituted the contested administrative decision in the case. 罌厭弝ⅰAT agreed with the Appellant that, in its Order No. 98 (NY/2014), 罌厭弝ⅰDT made no reference to considering receivability as a preliminary issue, however, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant did not establish that such an error resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision or had any effect at all on the decision. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant＊s claim that he did not receive a fair trial could not be sustained. 罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected the argument that the Appellant had no standard of education and was ignorant of the procedure of the 罌厭弝ⅰ internal justice system. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it was the staff member＊s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the contest of the administration of justice at the 罌厭弝ⅰ and that ignorance could not be invoked as an excuse. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the letter from 罌厭弝ⅰICEF, informing the Appellant that his request was time-barred and that recourse lay with 罌厭弝ⅰDT, could not be construed as a waiver by 罌厭弝ⅰICEF Administration of the deadline for requesting management evaluation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the application was not receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, having failed to demonstrate that 罌厭弝ⅰDT committed any error of law or any error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, the Appellant＊s appeal could not succeed. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the abolition of his post. 罌厭弝ⅰDT issued a summary judgment dismissing the application on the basis that the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the decision and therefore his application was not receivable.

Legal Principle(s)

罌厭弝ⅰDT has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation. It is the staff member＊s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the 罌厭弝ⅰ; ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT 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

Khan

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement