�山����

UNAT held that the Organisation correctly excluded the Appellant from the recruitment process for not meeting the minimum education requirement, as he had not entered his educational credential accurately. UNAT noted that the Appellant had had access to the Inspira Applicant’s Manual and World Higher Education Database, which was embedded into Inspira. UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that UNDT failed to implement the UNAT judgment to carry out additional fact-finding on the issue of whether Inspira reflected the variety of the educational systems of all Member States equally in 2016...

UNAT noted that, at the time of applying for the position, information was available to the Appellant in the form of the Inspira Applicant’s Manual, including the World Higher Education Database list, which meant that he had the information about how to reflect his degree correctly in his electronic application and that an inaccurate application would render him ineligible for the position. UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant’s challenge of the decision not to consider or select him for the position. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

On the Applicant’s claim that UNDT committed an error of procedure by not allowing him to submit an affidavit from his former supervisor, UNAT held that UNDT properly exercised its broad discretion under Article 18(1) of its Rules of Procedure in determining the admissibility as well as the evidentiary value and weight of the proffered affidavit. UNAT held that UNDT’s conclusions were consistent with the evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof for demonstrating an error in the judgment such as to warrant its reversal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

UNAT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. UNAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however UNAT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General’s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because UNAT did not detect any error in the UNRWA DT’s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, UNAT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the UNRWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly...

The evidence of procedural errors and irregularities supported the Dispute Tribunal’s findings of fact that lead to the justifiable conclusion that, had the irregularities not occurred, Mr Russo-Got had a foreseeable and significant chance of selection given his qualifications. The approach adopted by UNDT and by which UNDT assessed Mr.; Russo-Got’s chances of being selected for the post as one in five was reasonable. In the absence of errors of fact or law by UNDT, UNAT defers to its discretion in awarding and quantifying the pecuniary damages.

UNAT disagreed with UNDT and found the procedure laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules was not properly followed, as such the Secretary-General’s exclusion of the staff member from the selection process was not legal, rational, procedurally correct, or proportionate. UNAT firstly held that UNDT erred when it ruled that the invitation e-mail respected the advance notice requirement. UNAT reasoned that the day of the event (the receipt of the email) cannot be counted in computing the number of days required to give advance notice for a test. As such, by requiring at least five working...

The applicant, then a staff member, applied and was short-listed for the Galaxy-advertised post of ASG/DESA. The notice stated that the candidacies of all �山����staff members were to be “considered first”, that is to say, in priority to external candidates, and via a procedure akin to that of ST/AI/2006/3. The person appointed was not a �山����staff member and the applicant challenged the decision to appoint them. At around the time of the applicant’s application for the post, he was the subject of various widely publicized investigations. The respondent initially claimed that the decision not to...

The main legal issues in this case are whether the Applicant and the Organization had entered into a contract and whether the Applicant is entitled to access to the system of justice of the United Nations. The Tribunal found that no binding contract of employment was concluded by the Applicant and the Organization. The Applicant was not a staff member at the time the decision was made not to select her for the vacancy and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this case. Outcome: The application was rejected.

The Tribunal finds, inter alia, that no international labour standards or the United Nation’s Charter were breached in the process of the implementation of the General Assembly resolution on the Harmonization of Conditions of Service for Internationally-Recruited Staff in Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions. The Application is dismissed in its entirety Contract of employment - Article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute defines the contract of employment, as including: all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of alleged...

The Applicant claimed that the Administration had implicitly accepted that he was suitable as he had not been excluded from the process at the stage when suitability was discussed. Hence, and given that the applicable UNHCR recruitment rules provide for priority consideration of internal candidates, no external candidates should have been even considered. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not meet the minimum educational requirements nor the required professional experience for the post; as such, he was not eligible and, thus, not suitable for the post. Despite him being an...