2020-UNAT-987, Avramoski
UNAT held that there was no evidence before UNDT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant’s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant’s application to UNDT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and the EOD date. UNAT held that UNDT should have dismissed the application on receivability ratione materiae as both the entry on duty date and the subsequent refusal to amend it were not administrative decisions. UNDT did not err in dismissing the application on receivability ratione temporis as it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision in 2008 to reappoint, and not reassign, the Appellant and the subsequent EOD. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of UNDT in part.
The Applicant disputed her entry on duty (EOD) date for her reappointment with UNLB, which was recorded as 2 September 2008, and requested that it be amended to 28 February 2000 (the date that she was initially appointed to UNTAET). UNDT held that, although the Applicant had requested a timely management evaluation of the decision refusing to change her EOD date, the underlying decision of 2008 to enter 2 September 2008 as the EOD date was outside of the UNDT’s temporal jurisdiction. UNDT dismissed the application.
The party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds; a judgment can contain errors of law or fact, even with regard to the analysis of the tribunal’s own jurisdiction or the competence and yet, it may still not be appealable. UNAT has the authority to review errors of jurisdiction by the first instance tribunal regardless of who raised the issue. 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 and conditions of appointment; the administrative decision must have a direct impact on the terms of appointment or contract of employment of the individual staff member.