Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2017/015

UNDT/2017/015, Muhsen

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal was mindful of the fact that its authority to suspend or waive the time limits set forth in art. 8.3 of the UNDT Statute did not extend to deadlines for management evaluation. These deadlines cannot be waived notwithstanding whether the failing of the deadline would have been occasioned by confusing information received from the Administration. As provided in staff rule 11.2(c), the deadline for requesting management evaluation may only be extended by the Secretary-General pending efforts for informal resolution conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, under conditions specified by the Secretary-General, which is not the case here. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant was contesting the decision about his recourse following the 2013 UNHCR promotions session.

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to UNDT Statute art. 8.1(c), management evaluation is an obligatory step to take prior to requesting judicial review of an administrativedecision alleged to be in non-compliance with a staff member’s contract of employment or terms of appointment. Similarly, staff rule 11.2(a) provides that a staff member wishing to formally contest such an administrative decision shall, as a first step, submit to the Secretary-General in writing a request for a management evaluation of the administrative decision. In accordance with staff rule 11.2(c), a request for management evaluation shall not be receivable unless it is sent within 60 calendar days from the date on which the staff member received notification of the administrative decision to be contested.

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable
Outcome Extra Text

The decision should have been first submitted for management evaluation and since it was not the Tribunal found that the application was 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
Muhsen
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type