爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The 爆料网AT noted that the staff member had filed numerous and confusing claims and applications that had been the subject of various reviews by the Management Evaluation Unit, the 爆料网DT and the 爆料网AT, all of which essentially attempted to ensure that the Administration continued to pay her benefits for medical reasons after expiration of her fixed-term appointment.
The 爆料网AT held that her submissions failed to identify in precise terms a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The 爆料网AT found that the so-called non-decisions or incomplete decisions identified by her were not administrative decisions that had a direct, final, and legal effect on her employment contract.
The 爆料网AT found that the staff member’s challenges in respect of some of the alleged decisions were moot as they had been adjudicated by the 爆料网DT and the 爆料网AT in previous judgments.
The 爆料网AT held that her challenges of some of the alleged decisions were premature as a respective final administrative decision had not yet been made.
The 爆料网AT was of the view that the staff member had not met the burden of identifying the alleged defects in the impugned judgment and stating the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective.
The 爆料网AT concluded that the application was not receivable.
The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member contested alleged decisions and “non decisions” concerning the processing of her claim for compensation under Appendix D to the Staff Rules for injury attributable to the performance of official duties on behalf of the United Nations.
In Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2024/054, the 爆料网DT dismissed the application as not receivable.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
In establishing that an administrative decision was in non-compliance with the terms of their appointment or contract of employment, the applicant has the statutory burden to establish the non-compliance. Such a burden cannot be met where the applicant fails to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed.
An administrative decision must be such that its date is based on objective elements that both parties can accurately determine.
A person may not bring a case about an already resolved controversy.
Only a final administrative decision taken at the conclusion of the process will have direct legal consequences for an applicant’s terms of appointment and constitutes an appealable administrative decision.
An appellant has the burden of identifying the alleged defects in the impugned judgment and stating the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective.