AV

UNDT/2015/108

UNDT/2015/108, Babiker

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNDT further found that the Applicant also failed to submit her application to the UNDT within the prescribed time period. The UNDT found that UNDP provided incorrect information to the Applicant regard the “suspension” of its response to her management evaluation request, which may have contributed to the Applicant’s late filing of her application with the UNDT. Nevertheless, the UNDT found that ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice. The application was dismissed as not receivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant, a former staff member with the United Nations Development Programme (“UNDP”) in Haiti, contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment.

Legal Principle(s)

Deadlines for management evaluation request: The UNDT does not have jurisdiction, pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, to waive or extend the deadlines for management evaluation requests.Reiteration/repetition of the decision: Reiterations or repetitions of the same administrative decision in response to the Applicant’s communication do not reset the clock with respect to the applicable time limits in which the original decision is to be contested.Ignorance of law: Ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice.Suspension/waiver of the time limits: UNDP has no legal authority to suspend or extend the deadline for the filing of an application with the Dispute Tribunal. The time limits for filing before the Tribunal are stipulated in the Statute of the Tribunal, and the authority to suspend or waive them rests solely with the Dispute Tribunal, as results from art. 8.3 of the Statute and arts. 7.5 and 35 of the Rules of Procedure.

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.