UNDT/2021/028

UNDT/2021/028, CHERNOV

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The decision to change the Applicant’s reporting line is moot because the Administration amended that decision.The contents of the email in question do not produce any direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant’s terms and conditions of appointment, since the email only announces future anticipated revisions of the terms of references. The record confirms that there was a change to the Applicant’s reporting line. The change to the designation of the Applicant’s FRO and SRO are contestable administrative decisions. The contested change to the Applicant’s reporting officers falls under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and is a reviewable administrative decision. The second contested decision is therefore receivable. The organizational structure of Movement Control Section does not communicate an administrative decision. The organizational structure carries no direct legal consequences to the Applicant’s terms and conditions of service. The Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions of indirect impact or which may potentially affect a staff member in the future. This part of his application is therefore not receivable under art. 8.1(c) of the Tribunal’s statute and staff rule 11.2(a).

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Several changes in the Applicant’s reporting line

Legal Principle(s)

A statutory burden is placed upon an applicant to establish the administrative decision in issue. Such a burden cannot be met where the applicant fails to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. Moreover, an administrative decision must be such that its date is based on objective elements that both parties (Administration and staff member) can accurately determine. The assignment of a Second Reporting Officer, who plays a significant role in a staff member’s performance appraisal – the legal consequences of which are obvious – does affect the terms and conditions of the Applicant’s appointment. The same rationale would apply to the designation of an FRO who also plays a primary role in a staff member’s performance appraisal. A judicial decision will be moot if any remedy issued would have no concrete effect because it would be purely academic or events subsequent to joining issue have deprived the proposed resolution of the dispute of practical significance

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

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

CHERNOV

Entity

DOS

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NY/2020/043

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

New York