Ãå±±½ûµØ

2019-UNAT-917

2019-UNAT-917, Farzin

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. UNAT upheld the UNDT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. UNAT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, UNDT’s final legal conclusion that the Applicant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant’s application. UNAT held that UNDT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a specific reviewable administrative decision. UNAT held that the application was irreceivable due to the Appellant’s failure to identify in clear and precise terms a specific administrative decision to be challenged. UNAT held that where the underlying decision cannot be subject to judicial review, then the procedures utilised by the Administration in responding to management evaluation were not subject to judicial review i. e. the Appellant could not create a right to challenge the Administration’s procedures in that way. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested what he described as any decisions not to proceed with a justifiable request for inquiry, investigation, and reporting. UNDT issued a judgment on receivability which dismissed the application. UNDT found that a Certificate of No Contest signed by the Applicant, which included a handwritten note that said he would not contest his terms of separation, had been entered into freely. On the basis of this agreement, UNDT found that the Applicant had no standing to bring claims related to or arising from his period of employment with UNDP. In addition, UNDT found that the Applicant had not clearly identified the contested decision and that he failed to submit a timely request for management evaluation rendering the application not receivable ratione materiae.

Legal Principle(s)

A statutory burden is placed upon an applicant to establish that the administrative decision in issue was in non-compliance with the terms of his or her appointment or contract of employment; such a burden cannot be met where the applicant failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a specific decision which has a direct and adverse impact on the applicant’s contractual rights.

Outcome
Appeal dismissed on merits

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.

Applicants/ Appellants
Farzin
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type