UNDT/2025/011, Roeske
Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.
As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant’s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.
The Tribunal was also mindful of art. 11.6 of its Statute, which mandates that “[t]he judgments of the Dispute Tribunal shall be published, while protecting personal data, and made generally available by the Registry of the Tribunal”. In balancing these competing interests, the Tribunal was careful to craft the present judgment in such a way that the “sensitive medical evidence” that the Applicant was concerned about, or the “details about her taxes and personal finances” would not be revealed to the public.
The Applicant contested the 25 September 2023 decision to not reimburse her 2022 United States income taxes (Federal and State) and pay for the estimated 2023 income taxes (Federal and State).
The Tribunal recalled that the Appeals Tribunal has consistently stated that the Dispute Tribunal is required to satisfy itself that an application is receivable under art. 8 of its Statute (see, for instance, ’N 2011-UNAT-182, as affirmed in Christensen 2013-UNAT-335, and Barud 2020-UNAT-998).
Furthermore, it is well-settled case law that “the Dispute Tribunal may only review decisions that have been the subject of a timely request for management evaluation” (see Khan 2022-UNAT-1284, para. 52).
For the sake of completeness, on the issue of mootness, the Tribunal noted that the Appeals Tribunal has consistently held that where an applicant has already received the relief requested, an application is moot and should be dismissed (Rehman 2017-UNAT-795, para. 21, and see also, for instance, the Appeals Tribunal in Toson 2021-UNAT-1161, para. 27; Guetgemann 2022-UNAT-1201, para. 22; Mboob 2022-UNAT-1215, para. 33).
The Tribunal also denied the Applicant’s motions to file an amended application, to file a rejoinder, for anonymity, and for redaction of Order No. 069 (NBI/2024).