2016-UNAT-613, Gehr
UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that despite acknowledging that under UNAT’s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, UNDT declined to follow its jurisprudence. UNAT held that UNDT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the UNDT judgment in its entirety.
The Applicant challenged his performance evaluation for the period of 1 April through 31 December 2011. UNDT found that, despite the Applicant’s failure to seek management evaluation, the application was receivable. UNDT rescinded the Applicant’s performance appraisal and ordered that its judgment be placed in his Official Status File.
UNDT does not have authority to disregard the UNAT’s jurisprudence, which is stare decisis and must be followed. Under UNAT’s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body. 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 United Nations. Ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse.