¹ú²úAV

2016-UNAT-672, Babiker

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT found that UNDT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). UNAT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). UNAT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus, UNDT erred in finding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. However, UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it refused to grant the Appellant’s request for waiver of the filing deadline and an extension of the deadline to 90 days from the receipt of the 20 March 2014 letter. UNAT held that the Appellant should have known that UNDP had no authority to “suspend†the management evaluation process. UNAT also held that the UNDT erred in failing to conclude that the Administration should not benefit from its own advice—even if that advice was misplaced. UNAT also held that only circumstances beyond a staff member’s control, that prevented them from appealing in a timely manner, may be considered “exceptional circumstances,†so as to justify waiving the statutory time limit. UNAT accordingly held that UNDT correctly determined that the application was not timely and not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNDT’s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. UNDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis.

Legal Principle(s)

An administrative decision not to renew a staff member’s fixed-term appointment is perhaps the most significant administrative decision affecting a staff member and is not a decision casually communicated. UNDT and UNAT must strictly adhere to statutory filing deadlines as one of the ways to assure the timely hearing of staff members’ cases and the prompt rendering of judgments. Only circumstances beyond a staff member’s control, that prevented them from exercising the right of appeal in a timely manner, may be considered “exceptional circumstances†justifying a waiver of the statutory time limit.

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.