UNDT/2012/148

UNDT/2012/148, Kratschmer

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNDT found no grounds for excusing the Applicant from his obligation to first request management evaluation before filing his application with the Dispute Tribunal.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant, who previously worked as Regional Administration Officer with the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (“UNMIT”), filed an application with the Dispute Tribunal in New York, complaining that his former First Reporting Officer (“FRO”) had not submitted a “Special Report” concerning him for the period 22 October 2010 to 30 April 2011. The Applicant filed this claim in the expectation that the Tribunal would order UNMIT to discuss with him his performance in certain functions during this period and to provide him with a “Special Report” as well as to reinstate him in his former post so that this could be done. The Applicant agrees that he had not requested management evaluation.

Legal Principle(s)

Management evaluation: Pursuant to art. 8 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, read together with staff rule 11.2(a), an applicant must, as a mandatory first step, request management evaluation of a contested decision before filing an application with the Dispute Tribunal (see the United Nations Appeal Tribunal (“UNAT”) in Planas 2010-UNAT-049, para. 23). The purpose of such management evaluation is primarily to allow the management to review, and possibly correct, an administrative decision, which an individual wishes to challenge, and thereby avoid unnecessary litigation before the Dispute Tribunal. Under art. 3.1(b) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute, as a former staff member of the United Nations, the Applicant may file an application with the Dispute Tribunal. However, no special exception is made for former staff members that releases the Applicant from the requirement that he must first request management evaluation before he files his application with the Dispute Tribunal. Definition of administrative decision: A contestable decision may arise when the Administration fails, or omits, to take proper action where an applicant can define a right for her or him to have such action be taken (see, for instance, Tabari 2010-UNAT-030).

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable

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
Kratschmer
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type