2024-UNAT-1408

2024-UNAT-1408, Hydar Daniel Mlouk Majook

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT agreed with the UNDT’s conclusion on the receivability of the application but suggested that the UNDT should have applied a different methodology for determining it.

The UNAT held that the staff member did not have standing before the UNDT regarding claims made in his former capacity as an individual contractor, and thus this claim failed on ratione personae grounds. The other claims made in his former capacity as staff member failed on ratione materiae grounds. He failed to prove that a specific request had been made to the Administration for certification of service. Absent any request, it cannot be said that a positive or implied administrative decision existed. In any event, the staff member did not request management evaluation of the contested decisions.

The UNAT found that the staff member had not discharged his burden to satisfy it that the UNDT’s Judgment was defective on any of the grounds of appeal.

The UNAT was of the view that the staff member’s argument with regard to his ignorance of the UNDT had no relevance. In any event, that argument does not have a chance to succeed because, ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT’s Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

A former individual contractor and former national staff of UNMISS contested several decisions: (a) not to pay him his contractor’s fee for 2009 and his salary for 2011, (b) to terminate his appointment in 2012 without serving him with a letter of termination with clear reasons, and (c) not to issue him a certificate of service.

In Judgment No. UNDT/2023/002, the UNDT rejected the application as not receivable ratione temporis.

The staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

The appeals process under the internal justice system in place is of a corrective nature. The role of the UNAT is not to review the case de novo.

It is the appellant’s burden to satisfy the UNAT that such errors exist and, as such, the scope of the appeal is normally determined by the party who initiated the appeals process.

Receivability is a gateway test that, if successful, enables the Tribunal to review the case on the merits. It is a logical sequence of tests that must normally be satisfied in the following order: ratione personae, ratione materiae, and ratione temporis.

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.

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

Hydar Daniel Mlouk Majook

Entity

UNMISS

Case Number(s)

2023-1792

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York