Ãå±±½ûµØ

2022-UNAT-1284, Ihsanullah Khan

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT first addressed the staff member’s request for an oral hearing.  The staff member wished to present medical evidence to the Tribunal to prove his medical incapacitation.  The UNAT rejected this argument, noting that the appeal was a review of the UNDT judgment based on the evidence presented to the UNDT, and the staff member had not applied to present new evidence.  The UNAT also rejected the arguments that the staff member could use the oral hearing to explain various policies or to advance an amicable resolution with the Administration.  The request for the oral hearing was denied. 

On the merits, the UNAT held there was no error in the UNDT Judgment.  The UNAT concluded that pursuant to Staff Rule 11.2(c), the staff member’s failure to seek management evaluation until more than 60 days had elapsed since he was notified of the contested decisions meant that he could not apply to the UNDT to challenge those decisions. The UNAT further noted that under Article 8.3 of the UNDT Statute, the UNDT had no authority to waive the deadline for making a request for management evaluation.  The UNAT noted that despite the staff member’s pleas about the injustice of his plight, given his medical condition, neither the UNAT nor the UNDT had the power to waive these time limits. 

The appeal was dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

In Judgment No. UNDT/2021/117, the Dispute Tribunal denied the staff member’s application contesting various decisions of the Administration denying reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with his medical travel and his requests for security evacuation allowances.  The UNDT denied the application because the staff member had not made timely requests for management evaluation of the contested decisions.

The staff member appealed, arguing that his incapacitation due to illness warranted an exception to the time limitations.

Legal Principle(s)

It is well-settled that the Dispute Tribunal may only review decisions that have been the subject of a timely request for management evaluation.

Although the Dispute Tribunal has discretionary powers to vary time limits for taking steps in relation to litigation, Article 8.3 of its Statute expressly provides that it lacks jurisdiction to waive  deadlines for management evaluation.

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