UNDT/2022/022

UNDT/2022/022, CAHN

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Irregularities in connection with a process, including alleged delay in reaching a final decision, may only be challenged in the context of an application contesting the conclusion of an entire process. Indeed, this final administrative decision, which concludes the compounded administrative process in administering a staff member’s complaint, is the only challengeable one and absorbs all the previous preliminary steps. The Tribunal noted from the record that the investigation of the Applicant’s FRO’s complaint had been completed and OHR had provided its assessment on the case. It further noted, however, that at the time of its Judgment the process was still ongoing concerning the determination of managerial/administrative action to be taken and that the Respondent confirmed in his closing submission that the matter had not yet been formally closed. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that no final decision on the matter at stake had been taken either at the time of the filing of the application or of the filing closing submissions, thus finding the application not receivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contests the “failure [of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights] to timely investigate and take a final decision following a complaint of misconduct made against [him] by his [first reporting officer]”.

Legal Principle(s)

UNAT jurisprudence distinguishes cases where there is an implied administrative decision, which the interested person can challenge, from those where there is only “an inordinate delay that presents a sorrowful picture of functioning on the part of the Administration”, without a decision, even implicit.

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.

Applicants/ Appellants
CAHN
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type