2023-UNAT-1386, Didzis Melbiksis
The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.
The UNAT held that the Appellant’s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.
The UNAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection on or about 25 March 2021. His application to the UNDT should therefore have been filed within 90 calendar days of his receipt of that management evaluation response. However, the UNAT found that he did not do so, but instead requested a second management evaluation, and filed his application only after receiving a denial of the second request. As those ongoing exchanges with the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) do not extend or re-set the applicable time limits, the UNAT held that the UNDT correctly determined that the Appellant’s application was also not receivable ratione temporis.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2022/119.
The Appellant, a former staff member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), contested the decision of the Administration not to select him for the position of External Relations Officer in Pretoria, South Africa. In its Judgment No. UNDT/2022/119, the UNDT dismissed his application as not receivable ratione materiae due to the fact that the contested decision was not an appealable administrative decision and ratione temporis because it was filed more than 90 days after his receipt of the management evaluation response.
The appellant has the burden on appeal to establish that the UNDT judgment is defective within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute.
The key characteristic of an appealable administrative decision is its capacity to produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms and conditions of appointment. The UNDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subjects of judicial review.
The MEU’s decision is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review by the UNDT. On the contrary, 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.
An application challenging a non-selection decision is receivable if filed within 90 days of the receipt of the response by management to the request for management evaluation. Ongoing exchanges with the MEU do not extend or re-set the applicable time limits.