鶹ý

2025-UNAT-1551

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

The UNAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests “to clarify” the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken earlier. The staff member cannot rely on the clarifications, discussions or reiterations of the contested decision to reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline to request management evaluation.

The UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal did not err in finding the staff member’s application not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The staff member contested the Administration’s failure to address his concerns that a law enforcement agency of the host country was attempting to recruit him to be an agent against his country of nationality (contested decision).

In Judgment No. UNDT/2024/087, the UNDT found the staff member’s application not receivable as the request for a management evaluation of the contested decision was untimely.

The staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

A timely request for management evaluation is a mandatory step in the appeals process and a prerequisite to invoke the UNDT’s jurisdiction.

The time limit for requesting management evaluation is subject to strict compliance and the sanction for non-compliance is non-receivability of the appeal.

An administrative decision to a party is the decisive act that triggers the time limit for a request for a management evaluation.

The subject line of an e-mail often governs or guides its content or operative part and is crucial in e-mail communications as it conveys its purpose and contents.

Outcome

Appeal 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.