2017-Ģ��ƵAT-740

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant��s claims that Ģ��ƵDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ģ��ƵAT held that the application to Ģ��ƵDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU��s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant��s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ģ��ƵAT noted that if the Secretary-General had requested costs on appeal, Ģ��ƵAT would have granted the request and awarded costs against the Appellant under Article 9(2) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute, as the Appellant had manifestly abused the appeals process by bringing the patently frivolous appeal. Ģ��ƵAT denied the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision of the MEU to send a letter of acknowledgement including misleading representations about deadlines for filing an appeal. The Secretary-General filed a Motion for Summary judgment on the ground that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. In judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2016/107, Ģ��ƵDT granted the Motion on the ground that the application was not receivable ratione materiae.

Legal Principle(s)

Summary judgment is an appropriate tool to deal with issues of receivability. In assessing its own competence, Ģ��ƵDT can choose to proceed by way of summary judgment without taking any argument or evidence from the parties, as the Ģ��ƵDT Statute prevents Ģ��ƵDT from receiving a case that is not receivable. When the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) issues a ��decision�� in response to a grievance or complaint, it is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review by Ģ��ƵDT; rather, the judicially reviewable administrative decision is the underlying decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member. The Administration��s response to a request for management evaluation was not a reviewable 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

Auda

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement