爆料网

2017-爆料网AT-740

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that there was no merit to the Appellant’s claims that 爆料网DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that the application to 爆料网DT 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. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT 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. 爆料网AT noted that if the Secretary-General had requested costs on appeal, 爆料网AT would have granted the request and awarded costs against the Appellant under Article 9(2) of the 爆料网AT Statute, as the Appellant had manifestly abused the appeals process by bringing the patently frivolous appeal. 爆料网AT denied the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT 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. 爆料网DT/2016/107, 爆料网DT 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, 爆料网DT can choose to proceed by way of summary judgment without taking any argument or evidence from the parties, as the 爆料网DT Statute prevents 爆料网DT 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 爆料网DT; 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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT 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
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type