Ãå±±½ûµØ

2023-UNAT-1386

2023-UNAT-1386, Didzis Melbiksis

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

The UNAT held that the Appellant’s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.  

The UNAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection on or about 25 March 2021.  His application to the UNDT should therefore have been filed within 90 calendar days of his receipt of that management evaluation response.  However, the UNAT found that he did not do so, but instead requested a second management evaluation, and filed his application only after receiving a denial of the second request.  As those ongoing exchanges with the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) do not extend or re-set the applicable time limits, the UNAT held that the UNDT correctly determined that the Appellant’s application was also not receivable ratione temporis

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2022/119.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Appellant, a former staff member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), contested the decision of the Administration not to select him for the position of External Relations Officer in Pretoria, South Africa.  In its Judgment No. UNDT/2022/119, the UNDT dismissed his application as not receivable ratione materiae due to the fact that the contested decision was not an appealable administrative decision and ratione temporis because it was filed more than 90 days after his receipt of the management evaluation response.

Legal Principle(s)

The appellant has the burden on appeal to establish that the UNDT judgment is defective within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute.

The key characteristic of an appealable administrative decision is its capacity to produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms and conditions of appointment.  The UNDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subjects of judicial review. 

The MEU’s decision is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review by the UNDT.  On the contrary, the purpose of management evaluation is to afford the Administration the opportunity to correct any errors in an administrative decision so that judicial review of the administrative decision is not necessary.

 

An application challenging a non-selection decision is receivable if filed within 90 days of the receipt of the response by management to the request for management evaluation.  Ongoing exchanges with the MEU do not extend or re-set the applicable time limits.

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.