2014-UNAT-405, Obino
UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed and to meet his statutory burden of proving non-compliance with the terms of his appointment or his contract of employment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
The Applicant contested the decision of the Secretary-General to implement a decision by the Chairman of the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) to reclassify the Addis Ababa and the Nairobi duty stations. UNDT considered the case on paper, declining to hold oral proceedings. UNDT found that the application was not receivable since it did not challenge an appealable administrative decision.
In terms of appointments, promotions, and disciplinary measures, it is straightforward to determine what constitutes a contestable administrative decision as the decisions that have a direct impact on the terms of appointment or contract of employment of the individual staff member. Administrative decisions might be of general application seeking to promote the efficient implementation of administrative objectives, policies, and goals and, although the implementation of the decision might impose some requirements for a staff member to exercise his or her rights, the decision does not necessarily affect his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. What constitutes an administrative decision will depend on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision.