UNDT/2017/050, Haydar
The Tribunal concluded that the application was generally not receivable because the Applicant was specifically challenging MEU’s negative responses to her various requests for management evalution. This conclusion nothwithstanding, the Tribunal reviewed each of the Applicant’s claims and concluded that they were not receivable because she: failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the UNDT Statute in relation to her claim that there was a “wall of silence†was estopped from re-litigating her claim in relation to the delay in releasing the results of the investigation into her reassignment and had failed to request management evaluation of her claim that the Respondent failed to conduct an investigation into her allegation of a hostile work environment and that this failure had violated her right to work in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and abuse of authority. The Tribunal made the following observations in light of the multiplicity of inarticulate applications that had been filed on behalf of the Applicant by counsel: Applications that are filed by legal counsel must be well-articulated and disclose proper causes of action, in other words, they must disclose the administrative decisions for which the Tribunal’s review are sought. They must duly comply with relevant legal conditions and the forms for bringing applications provided on the Tribunal’s website. It is expected at all times that all applicants, especially those who have legal representation, present their applications with a good degree of articulation and a high sense of responsibility.
The Applicant contested the following: MEU’s responses to her requests for management evaluation her reassignment misrepresentations made to MEU the wall of silence the delay in releasing to her the results of an investigation into the circumstances leading to her reassignment the absence of a meaningful investigation into the hostile work environment she was working in the Respondent’s failure to take action against MINUSCA managers for engaging in prohibited conduct and to protect her rights as a staff member.
The locus classicus with regard to what constitutes an administrative decision is set out by the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal in Judgment No. 1157, Andronov (2002). The Administration’s response to a request for management evaluation is not a decision that produces direct legal consequence affecting a staff member’s terms and conditions of appointment. It is therefore not reviewable.
The application was not receivable rationae materiae.