UNDT/2024/019 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

UNDT/2024/019, Bedi

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant’s Counsel’s email of 12 June 2023 did not reset the time limit for allowing the Applicant to contest all of her supervisor’s comments in her PER, nor was it capable of suspending the time limit, given that the Applicant’s deadline for contesting all of her supervisor’s comments expired before the discussion of 12 June 2023. And as was submitted, it was a proposal in the context of inter partes discussion that did not involve the Office of the Ombudsman.

Since the Applicant got the relief which she sought regarding the one aspect of the PER which she subjected to management evaluation, any further contests relating to the settled claim are moot.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested some comments left by her supervisor in her Performance Evaluation Report.

Legal Principle(s)

“[W]here an Applicant has already received the relief requested, an application [seeking a remedy which has already been granted] is moot and should be dismissed” (see, Rehman 2017-UNAT-795, para. 21)

The Appeals Tribunal has consistently held that 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” (see, for instance, Farzin 2019-UNAT-917, para. 40 and, similarly, Applicant 2013-UNAT-381, para. 37, and Nastase 2023-UNAT-13, para. 31)

“[C]learly identifying the administrative decision the staff member disagrees with is essential for this goal to be met” (see, Farzin, para. 40 and, similarly, Applicant, para. 37). It is therefore necessary for an applicant to state all relevant issues in the management evaluation request for the Administration to consider them as part of its management evaluation (see, Nouinou 2020-UNAT-981, para, 57, as well as Nouinou 2019-UNAT-902, para. 42).

The “time for challenging an administrative decision starts with the notification of that decision” (see, Rahman 2012-UNAT-260, Chahrour 2014-UNAT-406, and ��’D�ǲԲԱ�� UNDT/2014/63).

It is firmly established that the deadline for requesting management evaluation cannot be waived by the Dispute Tribunal (see, art. 8.3 of its Statute and the Appeals Tribunal in, for instance, Costa 2010-UNAT-036; Rosca 2011-UNAT-133, Ajdini et al 2011-UNAT-108, Dzuverovic 2013-UNAT-338, and Wu 2013-UNAT-306/Corr.).

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

Bedi

Entity

UNICEF

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NY/2023/026

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

New York