UNDT/2019/031, Dzubur
The final decision to terminate the Applicant’s continuing appointment has not yet been taken. In this case, the General Assembly had not endorsed abolition of the specific post encumbered by the Applicant, but, rather, one of the two which were subject to the comparative review. Retaining the Applicant in service was not foreclosed and may have been effected by either the Administration’s own action or by the Tribunal’s judgment, should the Applicant’s case prevail on the merits. The contested decision did not have a direct impact on the applicant’s terms of appointment as it merely constituted a prefatory act. As such it was irreceivable.
The Applicant challenged the outcome of a comparative review process (CRP) conducted by UNAMID to include her among staff members identified for retrenchment, communicated to her by letter dated 28 October 2018.
The key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms and conditions of appointment. The Secretary-General’s budgetary proposal and the General Assembly’s adoption by resolution of the budget proposal are merely acts prefatory to, or preceding, an administrative decision that would produce direct legal consequences to the applicant’s employment. Inevitability and certainty as elements conditioning a receivability issue are meant to denote a situation where all the elements of the disposition of the impugned decision are readily determined and only the implementation is deferred, or extended, in time.