2024-UNAT-1472, Alain Bertrand Kamdem Souop
The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly identified UNDP as the respondent in the present case because it was UNDP that administered the staff member’s position and was therefore his employer. The UNAT found that the staff member’s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response. The UNAT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2023/036.
A staff member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) contested the decision to reject his request for reimbursement of medical evacuation costs.
In its Judgment No. UNDT/2023/036, the UNDT concluded that his application was premature and thus not receivable because he filed it before receiving the response to his management evaluation request.
The staff member appealed.
The UNDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of judicial review, including determining the identity of the parties before it.
When a staff member seeks management evaluation of a decision, she/he has the obligation to await management evaluation response, or at least the expiration of the delay for receiving that response, before filing an application with the UNDT.
The Administration’s response to a request for management evaluation is not a reviewable decision. Rather, that response is an opportunity for the Administration to resolve a staff member’s grievance without litigation – not a fresh decision.