Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2022/028

UNDT/2022/028, Chernov

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

In this case, the Administration initially decided that the Applicant was eligible for a prorated amount of lump-sum boarding allowance, but during the management evaluation process, the Administration found the previous decision erroneous and decided that the Applicant was in fact not entitled to any boarding allowance. Therefore, the decision subject to judicial review in this case is the Administration’s decision to find him ineligible for any boarding allowance. It is clear that under staff regulation 3.2 and Appendix B to the Staff Regulations and Rules, eligible staff members are only entitled to receive payment for boarding expenses when a child is actually boarding to attend school, regardless of whether a staff member is entitled to regular or special education grant. Any other interpretation of relevant administrative issuances (ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 and ST/AI/2018/2) would conflict with staff regulation 3.2 and Appendix B to the Staff Regulations and Rules, which are the higher norms in the legal framework. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Administration correctly decided, through management evaluation, that the Applicant was not entitled to lump-sum payment of USD5,000 for boarding expenses as his child was not boarding to attend school.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Administration’s decision that he is not entitled to payment for the lump-sum boarding allowance of USD5,000 he requested for his dependent child

Legal Principle(s)

Management evaluation is a vital component of our system for the administration of justice. 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. The interpretation of a rule is made within the context of the hierarchy in which the rule appears. In general terms, administrative issuances set out instructions and procedures for the implementation of the Staff Regulations and Rules. Just as a Staff Rule may not conflict with the Staff Regulation under which it is made, an administrative issuance may not conflict with the applicable Staff Regulation or Rule which it implements.

Outcome
Dismissed on merits
Outcome Extra Text

 

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
Chernov
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type