UNDT/2019/144, Kebede
The present case concerns a rebuttal process that was initiated in accordance with section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. On 12 June 2017, the rebuttal panel issued its report recommending that the administration maintain the original overall rating of “partially meets performance expectations” and the Applicant’s placement on a performance improvement plan. In accordance with section 15.5 of ST/AI/2010/5, the performance rating of “partially meets performance expectations” became binding on the Applicant because of the rebuttal panel’s recommendation of 12 June 2017. In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal concludes that there was a final decision.; There is no evidence of any adverse administrative decision stemming from the rebuttal process or the rebuttal report that would affect the applicant’s conditions of service and thus fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The outcome of the rebuttal process for the Applicant’s 2013-2014 e-PAS (performance document).
For a decision to be challengeable under art. 2.1(a) of the UNDT Statute, it must be final and produce direct legal consequences to the legal order. Conversely, a decision that is final but produces no direct legal consequence for a staff member’s terms of appointment or the contract of employment is not receivable by the Tribunal.; There must be a legal consequence that is caused directly by the administrative decision to the conditions of service. Such consequences are normally not caused by the evaluation alone.