Ãå±±½ûµØ

2013-UNAT-349

2013-UNAT-349, Servas

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT agreed with UNDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before UNDT. UNAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant’s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with UNDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing the merits of the claim. UNAT held that because the UNDT had no competence and jurisdiction to make any factual findings and reach any legal conclusions on the merits of the Appellant’s claims, the correctness of such improper findings and conclusions could not be the basis of an appeal. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in denying the Appellant’s request for confidentiality and that her other claims on appeal had no merit, therefore it did not need to address them. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

UNDT judgment: The Applicant contested a decision by the Ethics Office not to consider that the settlement agreement she had concluded, following mediation, constituted protected activity. UNDT dismissed the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

Legal Principle(s)

A staff member must be familiar with the Staff Rules and understand his or her obligation to act in conformance with those rules.

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 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.

Applicants/ Appellants
Servas
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type