2015-UNAT-578, Staedtler
UNAT held that UNDT was correct to reject the Appellant’s application and held that the appeal had no merit. UNAT held that ,for various reasons, UNDT erred in not finding that the whole of the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not decide the question of whether an investigation ought to be conducted, but rather passed it into the hands of UN-Habitat. UNAT held that this preliminary step of referral was not, of itself, capable of producing direct legal consequences affecting the Appellant’s terms of conditions of appointment and was thus not an appealable administrative decision. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to show that UNDT committed any error warranting a reversal of its decision to reject the application. UNAT opined that the application to UNDT was not receivable ratione materiae in toto; however, since UNDT arrived at the correct outcome of the case, UNAT held there was no reason to interfere with the decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal.
The Applicant contested the decisions not to launch an investigation into misconduct and prohibited activities, not to provide him with the requisite information, and to provide misleading information. UNDT dismissed the application.
The key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms or conditions of appointment.