UNDT/2016/218

UNDT/2016/218, Nielsen

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant failed to identify the administrative decision she is contesting and from the Tribunal’s examination of the documents received, it is not possible to clearly define the administrative decision that she wishes to contest. Furthermore, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of an administrative decision, if any. It follows that the present application is not receivable, ratione materiae, and the Tribunal is not competent to adjudicate the matter. The above is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply, and even if it was not raised by the parties.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant filed an “application on extension [of] deadline in 山[Joint Staff] Pension Fund [“UNJSPF”] for [her] pension contribution”.

Legal Principle(s)

The Tribunal is competent to hear and pass judgement on an application filed by an individual “[t]o appeal an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment”. An administrative decision “is a unilateral decision taken by the Administration in a precise individual case (individual administrative act) which produces direct legal consequences to the legal order”. For an application to be receivable, the applicant must first submit a request for management evaluation within the applicable time limit, which is “60 calendar days from the date on which the staff member received notification of the administrative decision to be contested”. An application is not receivable ratione materiae, if the Applicant failed to file a (timely) management evaluation. In addressing issues of receivability, it is appropriate for the Dispute Tribunal to proceed by way of summary judgment under art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure.

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.