UNDT/2020/081, Noor
Management evaluation request The UNFPA Policies and Procedures Manual provides that they shall be submitted using a form annexed to said Manual and sent to a precise email address. While the Tribunal recognizes that the Applicant has not followed the established formalities to request management evaluation, i.e., use of a form and a specified email address, it cannot be overlooked that he exercised due diligence to ensure that his documented request reached the Executive Director, UNFPA and that, moreover, his request was acknowledged. The latter, in turn, brings the Tribunal to conclude that the Applicant could reasonably believe that he had complied with the initial mandatory requirement of requesting management evaluation. The Respondent did not proffer a plausible explanation for the lack of action on the Applicant’s request for management evaluation and, under the circumstances, he cannot shield behind what seems to have been an internal communication breakdown to support his challenge to the receivability of the application on purely formal reasons. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant met the requirement to request management evaluation and did not deprive UNFPA of the opportunity to “review and, if necessary, cure flawed administrative decisions”. Lack of Administrative Decision The Tribunal is satisfied that the HR Mission was a managerial exercise of discretion to assess a number of complex and different issues in the Bihar Office. Consequently, the contested decision is not an administrative decision but rather a managerial action within the discretionary authority of the Regional Director, which is not subject to judicial review. The Tribunal could not identify any direct legal consequence on the Applicant which impacted his terms of appointment as a result of the HR Mission to Bihar. In fact, at the time the application was filed, the Applicant was still a staff member and there is no evidence of any harm suffered by him as a consequence of said HR Mission. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal DECIDES to reject the application as irreceivable ratione materiae.
The Applicant contests the decision to authorize and conduct a fact-finding mission to the UNFPA State Office in Bihar, India, in response to his complaint of discrimination, harassment and abuse of authority by the UNFPA Assistant Representative in India and four colleagues.
For an application to be receivable, the action under review must be an “administrative decision” within the meaning of the above article of the Tribunal’s Statute. Administrative decisions are characterized by the fact they are taken by the Administration, they are unilateral and of individual application, and carry direct legal consequences.