Ãå±±½ûµØ

2016-UNAT-699

2016-UNAT-699, Vukasovic

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether UNDT correctly concluded that the Appellant’s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation of the contested administrative decision before filing his application with UNDT. UNAT noted that requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process and held that the Appellant’s argument that there are no instructions in which form management evaluation should be requested had no merit. UNAT noted that staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules applicable to them and it is their own responsibility to ensure that they are aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the United Nations. In short, ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse. UNAT was satisfied that UNDT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the Appellant’s application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNDT’s summary judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested his non-selection to a post. UNDT found the application non-receivable as the Applicant had not submitted a request for management evaluation of the non-selection decision.

Legal Principle(s)

Requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process, as it assures that there is an opportunity to quickly resolve a staff member’s complaint or dispute without the need for judicial intervention. Staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules applicable to them and it is their responsibility to ensure that they are aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the United Nations.

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
Vukasovic
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type