2014-UNAT-456 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2014-UNAT-456, Pirnea

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered both an application for Revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-311 and a motion for confidentiality filed by Mr Pirnea. On the application for revision of judgment, UNAT held that Mr Pirnea did not set forth a new fact that was unknown to both him and UNAT at the time the judgment was rendered. Thus, his application did not come within the grounds for revision set forth in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. On the motion for confidentiality, UNAT noted that the motion was late, and it was unlikely that confidentiality could be achieved or implemented after the judgment had been published for over a year. UNAT further noted that Mr Pirnea did not show any greater need than any other litigant for confidentiality and that his general discomfort with having his name attached to the judgment was not grounds to grant the motion. UNAT dismissed the application for revision and denied the motion for confidentiality.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Mr Pirnea challenged the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment, claiming that the Administration had improperly exercised its discretion and violated his due process rights. He also claimed that he was due Daily Subsistence Allowance (DSA). In judgment No. UNDT/2012/068, UNDT found for Mr Pirnea. On appeal, in judgment No. 2013-UNAT-311, UNAT determined that the UNDT erred: (1) in determining that there was no valid reason for not renewing Mr Pirnea’s contract and in finding bias against Mr Pirnea; and (2) in receiving the claim for DSA because Mr Pirnea had not sought management review in a timely manner of that claim. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment No. UNDT/2012/068.

Legal Principle(s)

A successful application for revision of judgment must show: (1) a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to UNAT and the moving party; (2) that such ignorance was not due to the negligence of the moving party; and (3) that the new fact would have been decisive in reaching the original decision. The judgments of UNAT shall be published, while protecting personal data, and made generally available by the Registry of UNAT, and they will normally include the names of the parties. Public dissemination of the appellate judgments helps to assure there is transparency in the operations of UNAT and means that the conduct of individuals who are identified in the published decisions, whether they are parties or not, becomes part of the public purview.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Pirnea

Entity

UNDP

Case Number(s)

2013-507

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York