Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the application not receivable for failure to request management evaluation within the mandatory 60?day time limit, whether it erred in identifying the date of notification of the contested administrative decision, and whether any findings on mootness or alleged due process violations affected the outcome. It recalled that its role on appeal is limited to determining whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified the operative administrative decision as the communication of 22 May 2023 informing the staff member that she was personally liable for United States federal and state income taxes. It found that subsequent correspondence merely reiterated that decision and did not reset the time limit for management evaluation. As the request for management evaluation was filed out of time, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no discretion under Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute to waive or extend the deadline.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that, although the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in treating the entire application as moot and committed a due?process error by failing to allow closing submissions on receivability, those errors did not affect the outcome. As the application was statutorily not receivable, the appeal could not succeed.
Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR) contested the decision of the Administration not to reimburse her United States federal and California state income taxes for the 2022 tax year, and not to pay estimated tax instalments for 2023, arising from a remote work arrangement in the United States. The Administration maintained that the tax liabilities were the responsibility of the staff member because the remote working arrangement had been authorized at her request and could not result in additional costs to the Organization.
In its Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2025/011, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application as not receivable, finding that the request for management evaluation had been submitted after the expiry of the mandatory 60?day time limit prescribed under Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that certain aspects of the application were moot, as the Administration had substantially settled the staff member¡¯s tax liabilities during the proceedings, and dismissed all pending motions.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
It is axiomatic to natural justice and due process that when there is an allegation in litigation, particularly one having the consequence of summary dismissal of the proceeding without regard to its merits, a tribunal must allow the party affected by the assertion an opportunity to respond to it in reply, whether by submission or evidence or both. This fundamental legal obligation is encapsulated in the Latin phrase audi alteram partem, or literally ¡°hear the other party¡±, before a decision is made on the issue.