Administrative decision: Measures taken on the basis of ST/SGB/2008/5 must not be considered as preliminary decisions that cannot be contested. The absence of a response to an Applicant’s specific requests may amount to an implicit administrative decision, if it has direct legal consequences on the Applicant’s rights as a staff member.
Receivability: Decisions by the Ethics Office are administrative decisions that are subject to appeal before the Tribunal, since they may directly affect staff members’ rights. A request for management evaluation has to be sought prior to the filing of the application and hence her request to regularize her application a posteriori could only be rejected, in accordance with staff rule 11.2, namely the required antecedence of the request for management evaluation to the application.
At no time following the decision of the rebuttal panel did the Applicant seek an informal resolution of her case which could have suspended the applicable time limits in this matter.
The UNDT found that the application was receivable. Subject matter of management evaluation request: the grant of an appointment to Dakar and the reassignment to Dakar were deemed to be one and the same issue. Thus, the Applicant had requested management evaluation of the decision to reassign him from Haiti to Dakar.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant first became aware that something was amiss in the recruitment process on 29 February 2008 when he was told that a “hold had been put on” the issuance of his letter of appointment by the SRSG. Subsequently, the Applicant was aware of the decision to appoint another candidate to the position in question in June 2008. Still later, in April 2009, and from the Applicant’s own; submissions, while in New York, he received what he called a “verbal apology” (for the way things turned out) from the Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations. The...
Due to the fact that the Applicant had not been rostered following the completion of the initial post selection, he was not eligible for consideration to be selected upon the transfer of the first selected candidate under art 10.4 of ST/AI/2006/3. The selection of a candidate “from the list endorsed by the central review body with respect to the particular vacancy” is a new separate administrative decision and therefore none of the Applicant’s rights were breached by this new selection. Consequently, the Applicant lacks standing to contest the second separate and individual administrative...
In this case, the Applicant is a permanent staff member who contested the selection decision of a candidate other than her, as well as her non-selection, for the Post. The application before the Tribunal was filed on 8 April 2012 which is within 90 days following her receipt of the MEU’s 23 March 2012 decision. However, seeing that the initial request for management evaluation was time-barred it has no legal effect and the application before the Tribunal is therefore not receivable.
Administration’s withdrawal of unlawful individual administrative decisions which created rights: According to the Appeals Tribunal’s case law, a decision creating rights cannot in principle be withdrawn by the Administration. However, staff rule 11.2 which governs the management evaluation process constitutes an exception to this principle. Thus, under this provision, the Administration is obliged to withdraw an administrative decision that is unlawful where such decision is challenged by a staff member. It is not appropriate to distinguish between the situation where the Administration finds...
Receivability/Waive or suspend MEU deadlines: It has been established in the UNDT and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) jurisprudence as well in the provisions of the UNDT Statute that the UNDT does not have the power to suspend or waive deadlines regardingtime limits for management evaluation. The Tribunal, being a creature of statutory law, cannot go beyond its mandate.If there was concrete evidence to show that the Ombudsman was seized of the matter within the stipulated time limits and if there was evidence showing the date on which the Ombudsman acknowledged receipt of the matter...
The Tribunal noted that the Respondent was challenging the receivability of the application based on two notifications to the Applicant i.e. the email of 22 March 2010 and the letter of 21 October 2010. With regard to the email of 22 March 2010, the Tribunal held that the email was a mere request or a piece of advice to the Applicant with regard to the permanent residency policy, and not an administrative decision. The Administration was merely advising or requesting further information from the Applicant in order to be in a position to process and presumably finalise the two year appointment...
