2022-UNAT-1300, Marius Mihail Russo-Got

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Mr. Russo-Got appealed. The UNAT held that the evidence incontrovertibly established that Mr. Russo-Got had failed to challenge any blacklisting decision in his request for management evaluation.  Moreover, while the application contained references to several posts for which he had applied and had not been selected, he did not request management evaluation of any selection decision nor did he appeal any particular selection decision in his application to the UNDT. The UNAT found that UNDT accordingly had not erred in finding that the claims in the application regarding the alleged blacklisting and Mr. Russo-Got’s non-selection on that basis were not receivable ratione materiae. He simply failed to specifically identify or challenge any such decision in his request for management evaluation and no selection decision was submitted for review. The UNAT was of the view that the UNDT also had not erred in dismissing the challenge to the IAIG report.  The evidence shows that on 19 January 2021, the General Counsel of UNOPS requested Mr. Russo-Got to provide comments on the IAIG report and stated that after the deadline for submission of these comments had elapsed, he would “consider ... whether any action should be taken by UNOPS”.  Mr. Russo-Got submitted his response on 1 February 2021, and his request for management evaluation on 11 February 2021.  There is no evidence that he was notified of any adverse decision or that he challenged any subsequent decision by UNOPS that is based on the IAIG report.  The UNAT noted that the IAIG report merely constituted a preliminary step in the decision process which in and by itself had no direct legal consequences for Mr. Russo-Got.  It accordingly did not constitute an administrative decision as contemplated in Article 2 of the Statute of the UNDT, and the UNDT accordingly did not err in finding that the challenge to the report was not receivable ratione materiae.  The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2021/128.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Mr. Russo-Got challenged a decision of UNOPS to blacklist him based on findings in an investigation report of the Internal Audit Investigation Group (IAIG), which alleged he had altered certain documents in an improper manner. The UNDT, by Judgment No. UNDT/2021/128, dismissed the application in its entirety as not receivable.

Legal Principle(s)

The UNDT shall be competent to hear and pass judgment on an application to appeal an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment. An appealable administrative decision is a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects the rights of another and produces direct legal consequences. It is incumbent upon the staff member to clearly identify the administrative decision that is contested. The UNDT has jurisdiction to receive applications appealing administrative decisions only when a staff member has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Claims that have not been raised in a request for management evaluation are not receivable ratione materiae.  Only final administrative decisions with direct legal effect are subject to review.  Steps, including investigative reports, that are preliminary in nature may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against a final decision of the Administration that has direct legal consequences.

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
Marius Mihail Russo-Got
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type