UNDT/2022/045, Menon
The Tribunal held that: the Applicant had not shown which terms of his appointment or which rules and regulations were violated by the Administration’s failure to reclassify a post he coveted and to budget for it; that he had not shown that the classification process had been completed; and that he was challenging a final decision from that process as per the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9.
The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a final, precise decision taken by a competent authority having direct adverse impact on his contractual rights within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the UNDT Statute.
The Applicant was contesting what he described as the “[r]efusal to include budget proposal for installation of P-5 level post as Chief of Aviation Safety Unit, MINUSMA in line with binding applicable law.â€
The burden is on the Applicant to establish that the administrative decision at issue meets the key characteristics of a reviewable decision under the Tribunal’s Statute.
An appealable administrative decision is a decision whereby its key characteristic is the capacity to produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms and conditions of appointment.
When considering a reviewable decision, the Tribunal is called upon to consider, apart from the direct legal consequences, the nature of the decision and the legal framework under which the decision was made.
Finality in the administrative decision is another requirement that constitutes a reviewable administrative decision because it is only from a final decision that consequences arising therefrom can be ascertained.