UNDT/2015/037

UNDT/2015/037, Seyfollahzadeh

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

While in her application she refers to a broad spectrum of decisions, only one of them—the decision not to grant her ASHI—was the subject of a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal found, accordingly, that the application with respect to issues which were not previously subjected to management evaluation was not receivable, ratione materiae. With respect to the denial of ASHI, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had been first notified of the contested decision on 1 May 2014. Due to ongoing discussions, the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation only on 18 July 2014, referring to a confirmative decision of 27 May 2014. The Tribunal found that the decision of 27 May 2014 did not constitute a new administrative decision and, therefore, rejected the application also in this respect.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant, a staff member of the United Nations Development Programme, contests a variety of decisions, including the decision not to grant her after-service health insurance (ASHI) upon her separation from the Organization.

Legal Principle(s)

Confirmative decision: In the absence of new facts or information, the reiteration of an unambiguous administrative decision does not constitute a new administrative decision and does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory time limits, which start to run from the date of the original decision. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for a staff member to fail to comply with the statutory time limits; it is a staff member’s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the internal system of administration of justice. Further, any reliance on the advice allegedly received from OSLA with respect to the scope and timing of the request for management evaluation does not help when statutory requirements have not been met.

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.