¹ú²úAV

UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the decision of 23 April 2013 when the Appellant was informed that his post would be abolished on 31 December 2013, constituted the contested administrative decision in the case. UNAT agreed with the Appellant that, in its Order No. 98 (NY/2014), UNDT made no reference to considering receivability as a preliminary issue, however, UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish that such an error resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision or had any effect at all on the decision. UNAT held that the Appellant’s claim that he did not receive a fair trial could not be sustained. UNAT rejected the argument that the Appellant had no standard of education and was ignorant of the procedure of the UN internal justice system. UNAT held that it was the staff member’s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the contest of the administration of justice at the UN and that ignorance could not be invoked as an excuse. UNAT held that the letter from UNICEF, informing the Appellant that his request was time-barred and that recourse lay with UNDT, could not be construed as a waiver by UNICEF Administration of the deadline for requesting management evaluation. UNAT held that UNDT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the application was not receivable. UNAT held that, having failed to demonstrate that UNDT committed any error of law or any error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, the Appellant’s appeal could not succeed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.