Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2019/158

UNDT/2019/158, Morales

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal chose to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The Tribunal recalled that under art. 8.1(c) and 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal’s Statute, a substantive application is receivable if the contested decision has been submitted for management evaluation and the application is filed within 90 calendar days of the applicant’s receipt of the response by management to his or her submission or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request was provided. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the impugned decision only three days prior to the filing of his application. He had not yet received a response to his request for management evaluation and the time limit for completing such evaluation had not yet expired. In the circumstances, the Tribunal found that his substantive application, filed on 30 October 2019, was premature. However, the Tribunal clarified that the Applicant may, if he still wished to contest the matter, file an application within 90 calendar days of receipt of the response by management to his request for management evaluation or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request is provided. Should the Applicant be inclined to submit a fresh application it will be considered on its merits and without prejudice to the contents of the current application.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select him for a G-6 position at the United Nations Office at Vienna.

Legal Principle(s)

The Tribunal has, on several occasions, considered matters of receivability on a priority basis without first transmitting a copy of the application to the Respondent or awaiting the Respondent’s reply before taking action to consider the claim (Hunter UNDT/2012/036, Milich UNDT/2013/007, Masylkanova UNDT/2013/033, Kalpokas Tari UNDT/2013/180, Karambizi UNDT/2018/001, Madi UNDT-2018-006 and Nwogu UNDT/2018/041). The UNDT is competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction in accordance with Article 2(6) of its Statute when determining the receivability of an application (Christensen 2013-UNAT-335). The purpose of management evaluation is to afford the Administration the opportunity to correct any errors in an administrative decision so that judicial review of the administrative decision is not necessary (Pirnea 2013-UNAT-311). This procedure is conducive to good administration and prevents the Tribunal from being clogged with cases unnecessarily (Akunamambo UNDT/2014/002).

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.