2020-Ģ��ƵAT-993

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s application regarding the implied decision conveyed in a conversation with his colleague was, indeed, not receivable ratione materiae. However, Ģ��ƵAT held that a later letter of response from the Administration effectively re-set the clock for the Appellant to file his request for management evaluation. Ģ��ƵAT held that the express decision in the letter, containing the rejection of the Appellant��s complaint and the reasons, therefore, was not a mere confirmation of the previous implied administrative decision, but a new, appealable decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione materiae. Ģ��ƵAT granted the appeal, reversed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment, and remanded the case back to Ģ��ƵDT for determination on the merits.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The staff member contested the administrative decision not to investigate his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority against his second reporting officer. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed his application as not receivable on the grounds that he had not filed a timely request for management evaluation. Specifically, the Ģ��ƵDT found that the staff member had not submitted a request within 60 days of receipt of notification of the contested decision or the date on which he first came to know of it.

Legal Principle(s)

With an implied administrative decision, Ģ��ƵDT must determine the date on which the staff member knew or reasonably should have known of the decision he or she contests.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Ruyffelaere

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement