2024-Ģ��ƵAT-1472

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT correctly identified Ģ��ƵDP as the respondent in the present case because it was Ģ��ƵDP that administered the staff member��s position and was therefore his employer. The Ģ��ƵAT found that the staff member��s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response. The Ģ��ƵAT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2023/036.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A staff member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) contested the decision to reject his request for reimbursement of medical evacuation costs.

In its Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2023/036, the Ģ��ƵDT concluded that his application was premature and thus not receivable because he filed it before receiving the response to his management evaluation request.

The staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

The Ģ��ƵDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of judicial review, including determining the identity of the parties before it.

When a staff member seeks management evaluation of a decision, she/he has the obligation to await management evaluation response, or at least the expiration of the delay for receiving that response, before filing an application with the Ģ��ƵDT.

The Administration��s response to a request for management evaluation is not a reviewable decision. Rather, that response is an opportunity for the Administration to resolve a staff member��s grievance without litigation �C not a fresh 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

Alain Bertrand Kamdem Souop

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement