2020-UNAT-984

2020-UNAT-984, Atuya

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant’s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. UNAT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before UNDT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. UNAT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the Appellant did not seek exercise of that discretion by requesting a deadline extension from the Secretary-General during the management evaluation process. UNAT held that UNDT correctly interpreted its jurisdiction in the matter to conclude that the Appellant’s request for management evaluation was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decisions to detain her and medically evacuate her to her home country in March 2018. UNDT noted that, by 31 March 2018, the Applicant had all the information about the decisions in order to seek management evaluation by the time limit deadline, but instead, the Appellant sought management evaluation 29 days out of time. UNDT found unpersuasive her claim that she was unable to deal with the issue until she had been released from a treatment centre. UNDT dismissed her application as not receivable.

Legal Principle(s)

The duty to provide a party with procedural fairness extends to all administrative decision-makers acting under statutory authority, such as UNDT and UNAT. The right to a fair hearing is the basis for procedural fairness, and this includes the right of a party to know the case against him or her and the right of reply. Procedural fairness is at issue where an administrative body has prescribed rules of procedure that have been breached. The UNDT’s Rules of Procedure do not provide the appellant with an automatic right of reply to the respondent’s answer to the application. UNDT has no discretion to waive the deadline for management evaluation or administrative review. The discretion to waive the deadline for management evaluation or administrative review lies with the Secretary-General.

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Atuya

Entity

MINUSCA

Case Number(s)

2019-1284

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York