2016-Ģ��ƵAT-661

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT affirmed Ģ��ƵDT��s finding and held that ��the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision�� all support the conclusion that the Administration��s response to a request for management evaluation is not a reviewable decision. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the response to a request for management evaluation is an opportunity for the Administration to resolve a staff member��s grievance without litigation and not a fresh decision. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The staff member submitted requests for management evaluation of the decisions not to roster him for the position of P-4 Resident Investigator and not to select him for the P-4 Investigator positions. The Under-Secretary-General for the Department of Management (USG/ DM) responded to the staff member��s requests for management evaluation, upholding the recommendations of the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) and finding no merit in his claims. The staff member subsequently filed an application with Ģ��ƵDT contesting the decision of the USG/DM. Ģ��ƵDT held that the staff member��s application was not receivable ratione materiae because the Administration��s response to a request for management evaluation is not a judicially reviewable administrative decision.

Legal Principle(s)

The outcome of a management evaluation (that is the Secretary-General��s response to a request for management evaluation) is not an appealable administrative decision.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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.

Applicants/Appellants

Kalashnik

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement