UNDT/2019/037, Akilimali Kafachi
At the time of the 9 March 2017 communication, the Applicant had been notified of the non-extension of his appointment neither had he received any individual communication regarding his separation entitlements. In short, his individual terms of appointment have not been affected and he had nothing to challenge yet. The first time when the individual decision may have transpired was on the occasion of receipt of a payslip which did not contain termination indemnity. That was the date of the contested decision indicated in the management evaluation. For a payslip to be accepted as such communication, the matter would need to have been obvious under the staff rules or established practice or have specifically arisen between the parties. In accordance with the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal, art. 8.1, in order to pursue his claim, the Applicant was required to request a management evaluation of the decision of 19 December 2017. Failing this, insofar as the application purports to challenge the decision of 19 December 2017, it was also irreceivable. As such, the application was rejected.
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.
A fact that an implied negative administrative decision has been taken and communicated must convincingly result from the circumstances. The date of an administrative decision is based on objective elements that both parties (Administration and staff member) can accurately determine. For a new decision to be appealable, it must be submitted afresh for management evaluation, no matter if the reconsideration and the management evaluation would have been carried out on the same level and in the same office. The determination whether a communication originating from the administration and pertaining to the same matter is a “mere reiteration”, or a fresh administrative decision, turns on the facts of the case.