UNDT/2014/126

UNDT/2014/126, Awan

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not timely submit his request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to identify in clear and precise terms specific administrative decision(s), actions or omissions, including their dates. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the application was not receivable, ratione materiae.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

During his employment with UNICEF, the Applicant was in charge of monitoring a construction contract with a local contractor on behalf of UNICEF in Pakistan. The Applicant was arrested by local police, although he showed his 山ID, on the basis of which appeared to be false allegations against him by the local contractor. While UNICEF issued several notes verbales to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Pakistan, to ensure respect of the Applicant’s privileges and immunities as a 山staff member, he was subjected to criminal and civil proceedings before national courts, until he was ultimately acquitted from all charges in November 2013. After having requested management evaluation in Mach 2014, the Applicant filed an application contesting “UNICEF failure in its obligations as enshrined in the policy guidelines of ST/AI/299 read with ST/SGB/198 to provide safety and protection to functional immunity of staff members, and as given under the 1946 Geneva Convention”.

Legal Principle(s)

Receivability ratione materiae: For an application to be receivable ratione materiae, the Applicant has to identify in precise terms the specific administrative decision(s) he/she is contesting, and must previously have filed a timely request for management evaluation of that decision(s).

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable

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