UNDT/2020/089 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

UNDT/2020/089, Faisal

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal has chosen to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Recalling that the Applicant only filed his application in June 2020, the Tribunal finds that his challenge against the 2013 decision is not receivable ratione temporis. In the absence of a request for management evaluation, the Tribunal cannot but find that the Applicant’s challenge to the 2018 and 2019 decisions is not receivable ratione materiae.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contests three decisions: one taken in 2013 (his non-selection to a P-3 position), another one taken in December 2018 (downgrading of the post he encumbered), and a third one taken in February 2019 (advertisement of the downgraded position).

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to art. 8.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Registrar “shall transmit a copy of the application to the respondent and to any other party a judge considers appropriate” after ascertaining that the application complies with articles 8.1 and 8.3 of said Rules.Also, under art. 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules of procedure, the Respondent shall have 30 calendar days to submit a reply. The Tribunal has, on several occasions, considered matters of receivability on a priority basis without first serving the application on the Respondent or awaiting the Respondent’s reply (see 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, Nwogu UNDT/2018/041 and Morales UNDT/2019/158). 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. “This competence can be exercised even if the parties of the administrative authorities do not raise the issue, because it constitutes a matter of law and the Statute prevents the UNDT from receiving a case which is actually non-receivable” (Christensen 2013-UNAT-335). Art. 8.4 of the Tribunal’s Statute and art. 7.6 of its Rules of Procedure, provide that an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after an applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision. Staff rule 11.2, clearly requires the filing of a request for management evaluation of a contested decision as a mandatory first step prior to seizing the Tribunal. This is a mandatory step (see Servas 2013-UNAT-349).

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Faisal

Entity

UNHCR

Case Number(s)

UNDT/GVA/2020/028

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Geneva