Ãå±±½ûµØ

Noting that the Appellant passed away during the course of the litigation and before the hearing of the appeal before UNAT, UNAT held that the claim, namely her challenge to the Administration’s refusal to move her back to her previous position, did not pass to her legal successor(s) in interest, no action is allowed to be commenced by her personal representative or successor in interest and that, under the specific circumstances of the case and due to the nature of the dispute, the issue in dispute was moot. Notwithstanding the mootness of the issue in dispute, UNAT held that the UNDT’s conclusion that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae was correct, as the Appellant failed to request management evaluation of the decision of 14 February 2019. UNAT held that the later reiteration of this decision did not constitute a fresh decision, but rather it was a mere restatement of the 14 February 2019 decision, and as such was not an appealable administrative decision. UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the remainder of the Appellant’s arguments concerned the meris of her case could not be assessed at the stage of proceedings as they stood, which were terminated at the receivability phase. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.