UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly determined that the former staff member’s claims for compensation under Appendix D based on UNAMID living conditions were not receivable because he had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies. The UNAT reaffirmed the principle that staff members must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to litigation.
The UNAT further held that the UNDT erred in reviewing the merits of the x?ray machine injury claim while a medical board review was pending. The UNAT found that both elements of the Appendix D claim were premature and should have been declared unreceivable. Accordingly, the UNAT reversed the UNDT’s ruling on receivability for that part but otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Regarding the negligence claim, the UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable. The Tribunal emphasized that the claim was barred by res judicata, had not been subjected to timely management evaluation, and concerned a cause of action (negligence) that is not available to staff members under the internal justice system.
Therefore, the UNAT dismissed both appeals, reversed Judgment No. UNDT/2024/101 in part, and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2024/104.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of the African Union/United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) contested the Administration’s decisions denying his claims for compensation under Appendix D of the Staff Regulations and Rules for injuries allegedly sustained during service, including an incident involving an x?ray machine and the impact of living conditions at UNAMID. He also challenged the implied decision not to respond to his complaint of negligence and breach of duty of care by United Nations medical personnel.
The UNDT, in Judgment Nos. UNDT/2024/101 and UNDT/2024/104, dismissed the applications. In the first judgment, the UNDT found the claim regarding UNAMID living conditions was not receivable because the staff member had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies, and it upheld the Administration’s decision denying compensation for the x?ray machine incident. In the second judgment, the UNDT dismissed the negligence claim as not receivable on grounds including res judicata, failure to seek timely management evaluation, and lack of a justiciable cause of action.
Former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
Res judicata prohibits redetermination of issues in subsequent proceedings.