Ăĺ±±˝űµŘ

ST/AI/2010/3

  • Medical Clearances and Fitness to Work (UNHCR/AI/2022/03)
  • MONUSCO AI No. 2013/15
  • ST/A1/371/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/149/Rev.4
  • ST/AI/155/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/189/Add.6/Rev.4
  • ST/AI/189/Add.6/Rev.5
  • ST/AI/1994/4
  • ST/AI/1997/4
  • ST/AI/1997/6
  • ST/AI/1997/7
  • ST/AI/1998/1
  • ST/AI/1998/4
  • ST/AI/1998/7
  • ST/AI/1998/7/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/1998/9
  • ST/AI/1999/111
  • ST/AI/1999/12
  • ST/AI/1999/13
  • ST/AI/1999/16
  • ST/AI/1999/17
  • ł§°Ő/´ˇ±ő/1999/17​
  • ST/AI/1999/3
  • ST/AI/1999/6
  • ST/AI/1999/7
  • ST/AI/1999/8
  • ST/AI/1999/9
  • ST/AI/2000/1
  • ST/AI/2000/10
  • ST/AI/2000/11
  • ST/AI/2000/12
  • ST/AI/2000/13
  • ST/AI/2000/16
  • ST/AI/2000/19
  • ST/AI/2000/20
  • ST/AI/2000/4
  • ST/AI/2000/5
  • ST/AI/2000/6
  • ST/AI/2000/8
  • ST/AI/2000/8/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2000/9
  • ST/AI/2001/2
  • ST/AI/2001/7/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2001/8
  • ST/AI/2002/1
  • ST/AI/2002/3
  • ST/AI/2002/4
  • ST/AI/2003/1
  • ST/AI/2003/3
  • ST/AI/2003/4
  • ST/AI/2003/7
  • ST/AI/2003/8
  • ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2004/1
  • ST/AI/2004/3
  • ST/AI/2005/12
  • ST/AI/2005/2
  • ST/AI/2005/2/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2005/3
  • ST/AI/2005/3/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/2005/3/Section 3.2
  • ST/AI/2005/5
  • ST/AI/2006
  • ST/AI/2006/3
  • ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2006/4
  • ST/AI/2006/5
  • ST/AI/2006/5/Section 11
  • ST/AI/2007/1
  • ST/AI/2007/3
  • ST/AI/2008/3
  • ST/AI/2008/5
  • ST/AI/2009/1
  • ST/AI/2009/10
  • ST/AI/2010/1
  • ST/AI/2010/12
  • ST/AI/2010/3
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 11.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 2.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 6.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 6.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 7.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 9.3
  • ST/AI/2010/4
  • ST/AI/2010/4/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Corr.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 15.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 15.7
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 4
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 7
  • ST/AI/2010/6
  • ST/AI/2010/7
  • ST/AI/2011/3
  • ST/AI/2011/4
  • ST/AI/2011/5
  • ST/AI/2011/6
  • ST/AI/2011/7
  • ST/AI/2012/1
  • ST/AI/2012/2
  • ST/AI/2012/2/Rev. 1
  • ST/AI/2012/2/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2012/3
  • ST/AI/2012/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2013/1
  • ST/AI/2013/1/Corr. 1
  • ST/AI/2013/3
  • ST/AI/2013/4
  • ST/AI/2015/2
  • ST/AI/2016/1
  • ST/AI/2016/2
  • ST/AI/2016/6
  • ST/AI/2016/8
  • ST/AI/2017/1
  • ST/AI/2017/2
  • ST/AI/2018/1
  • ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2018/10
  • ST/AI/2018/10
  • ST/AI/2018/10/Corr.1
  • ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1: sec. 6.1 and sec. 6.2
  • ST/AI/2018/5
  • ST/AI/2018/6
  • ST/AI/2018/7
  • ST/AI/2019/1
  • ST/AI/2019/1/Section 4.3
  • ST/AI/2019/3/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2020/3
  • ST/AI/2020/5
  • ST/AI/2021/4
  • ST/AI/222
  • ST/AI/234
  • ST/AI/234/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/234/Rev.1/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/240/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/246
  • ST/AI/273
  • ST/AI/292
  • ST/AI/293
  • ST/AI/294
  • ST/AI/299
  • ST/AI/308/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/309/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/326
  • ST/AI/343
  • ST/AI/367
  • ST/AI/371
  • ST/AI/371/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/372
  • ST/AI/379
  • ST/AI/394
  • ST/AI/397
  • ST/AI/400
  • ST/AI/401
  • ST/AI/404
  • ST/AI/408
  • ST/AI/411
  • ST/Al/2010/5
  • UNHCR/AI/2016/3
  • UNHCR/AI/2019/16/Corrigendum ((Administrative Instruction on the Management of Temporary Appointments)
  • UNHCR/AI/2019/7/Rev.1
  • UNMISS AI No. 005/2011
  • UNOPS Administrative Instruction Concerning Contract Renewals of Staff Members 2010 AI/HPRG/2010/02
  • Showing 1 - 10 of 186

    The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT did not err in holding that the Hiring Manager had correctly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her Personal History Profile (PHP) were equivalent to a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Certification.  One of the educational requirements for the position was the LSS certification or an “equivalent certification”.  In the present case, the UNDT correctly concluded that the Hiring Manager had properly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her PHP were equivalent to an LSS certification, as required for...

    The UNAT held that a procedural flaw occurred during the recruitment process due to the inappropriate screening of educational requirements.  Specifically, the UNAT highlighted that the Hiring Manager failed to verify if the candidates’ degrees were in fields related to Supply Chain Management, business administration/management, instead considering all of them eligible in respect of educational requirements. Nevertheless, highlighting that the former staff member was, unlike 16 other candidates, neither recommended for the position, nor rostered for future similar vacancies, the UNAT held...

    The Tribunal observed that a review of the evidence in this case indicated that the panel’s assessment of the Applicant’s interview was proper. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant received full and fair consideration and that the Administration followed all applicable procedures.

    Mr. Ronved appealed.

    The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

    The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable with respect to the refusal of a temporary promotion to the P-4 level.  The contested decision before the UNDT was the decision to extend the SPA, which the Appellant timely challenged before the MEU and the UNDT.  The extension of the SPA and the denial to grant a promotion were two sides of the same decision, with the same time limits for management evaluation.  Therefore, the request for management evaluation of both decisions was...

    The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in holding that the Administration misinterpreted one of the requirements for the position advertised in JO 127555, namely “experience in leading large teams”, as requiring experience of direct supervision of 10 people or more.  The UNAT further found that the vacancy announcement allowed for a such contextual interpretation as the literal meaning of “lead” is very general and does not, by itself, allow for an exact comprehension of the intended meaning.  Therefore, the UNAT held that it was reasonable for the Administration to interpret the requirement of...

    The Tribunal rejected the application finding that the Secretary-General made the final selection decision, lawfully taking into account the unchallenged considerations of geographical diversity and gender. In regard to the evaluation of the shortlisted candidates, the Applicant cannot allege to have been prejudiced by the choice of the other shortlisted or recommended candidates. The Applicant was among the recommended candidates. In any event, the Applicant does not demonstrate that the selected female candidate had less credentials than the other female candidates. The Applicant has not...

    Mr. Moulana appealed the UNDT judgment.  

    UNATnoted that the UNDT dismissed Mr. Moulana's application on the grounds of insufficient evidence, whereas he had not been afforded the opportunity to provide the evidence. UNAT held that the UNDT, by failing to address the Appellant’s requests for the production of documents, including ignoring his motion, violated the Appellant’s due process rights and deprived him of the opportunity to have his motion assessed and possibly granted, following which he could have submitted the pieces of evidence which the UNDT found he failed to provide.  Therefore...

    As long as the Temporary Job Opening had no impact on the Applicant’s chances of selection, then an irregularity could not be relied upon as a basis for the selection process to be declared unlawful.

    The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant cannot base his argument against the selection process in JO# 136259 by questioning the process in other matters which do not affect his case.

    The Tribunal held that whilst the procedure spelt out in ST/AI/2010/3 was not followed, it was unable to see how this irregularity could have had any impact on the selection process.  

    The UNAT dismissed Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez's appeal. The UNAT dismissed Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez’s argument of apprehension of partiality of the hiring manager claiming that there was an improper motive to unfairly eliminate him. The Appeals Tribunal found that the mere fact that the hiring manager was involved in two selection exercises in which Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was not successful did not indicate any partiality, but rather a regular exercise of the Administration’s routine of selecting candidates for advertised positions.  The UNAT further found that the UNDT did not err in finding no irregularity in...