2012-UNAT-196, Odio-Benito
UNAT held that the Appellant’s application was submitted to UNDT after the expiration of the response period; the response period began on the date on which she received a letter from the Management Evaluation Unit informing her that her request for a management evaluation was not receivable because, as a judge, she was not a staff member or a former staff member within the meaning of the Staff Rules. UNAT held that the Appellant’s claims that the UNDT judge erred on a question of fact, by considering the letter as the decision that concluded the management evaluation, and that it erred on a question of law by deducing that this reply triggered the time limit were unsubstantiated. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in a question of fact or of law in rejecting the application as not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.
The Applicant contested the decision to retroactively suspend her pension. UNDT rejected her application on the grounds that it was filed late and, therefore, not receivable.
When a person, whose right of access to the Ãå±±½ûµØadministration of justice system is doubtful, nevertheless chooses to submit a request for management evaluation and, subsequently, an appeal to the UNDT, that person must follow the logic of the procedure: if the Management Evaluation Unit replies that the request is not receivable, that reply, whatever its legal basis, constitutes a management evaluation, the date of receipt of which triggers the 90-day response period established in Article 8. 1 of the UNDT Statute.