2021-UNAT-1138, Secretary-General of UN
Contrary to the UNDT’s finding, Mr. Kollie’s letter of 7 June 2007 to the ABCC cannot be regarded as a request under Article 17 of the Appendix D to convene a medical board and reconsider the Secretary-General’s decision. Nor can the emails of 25/27 July 2017 and 24 August 2017 be regarded as a review of the 16 May 2017 decision of the Secretary-General or an administrative decision under Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. The emails of 25/27 July 2017 constituted an implied appealable decision by the ABCC to reject Mr. Kollie’s claim for reimbursement of his out-of-pocket expenses. But the emails of 24/25 August 2017 merely reiterated the 25-27 July 2017 implied decision. He did not request management evaluation of that implied decision within 60 days. Mr. Kollie’s UNDT application of 2 October 2017 was not receivable ratione materiae insofar as it challenged the ABCC’s recommendation of 11 April 2017 or its communication of 25/27 July 2017 and 24 August 2017 because there was no administrative decision. It is not receivable ratione temporis insofar as it was directed against the 16 May 2017 decision of the Secretary-General, because it was filed outside the 90-calendar-day time limit from the date on which he received notification of that decision.
UNDT/2020/119, in which UNDT partially granted Mr. Kollie’s application contesting the decision to award him USD 34,412.29 for a 28 per cent permanent loss of the function of the whole person, and ordered the Secretary-General to pay more compensation and the ABCC to review Mr. Kollie’s request for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses.
Reconsideration of the determination by the Secretary-General of the existence of a service-incurred injury or illness may be requested within 30 days of the notice of the decision, though the Secretary-General may accept for consideration a request made at a later date in exceptional circumstances. The request for reconsideration shall be accompanied by the name of the medical practitioner chosen by the staff member to represent him on the medical board. To appeal a decision by the Secretary-General on the recommendation of the ABCC in respect of an Appendix D claim, no request for management evaluation is necessary, because the ABCC is a technical body as determined by the Secretary-General. The ABCC has no competence to issue administrative decisions, but its power is limited to give recommendations to the Secretary-General. Determinations under Articles 11.1, 11.2, 11.3(a) and 11.4 of Appendix D can only be made by the Secretary-General. Consequently, the ABCC is not competent to review the Secretary-General’s earlier decision and issue a fresh administrative decision with respect to claims under Articles 11.1, 11.2, 11.3 and 11.4 of Appendix D. But the ABCC has a delegation of authority to pay medical expenses. Its decisions, express or implied, in this regard are appealable to the Dispute Tribunal.