Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the overall test for a suspension of action with respect to that decision. With respect to the decision to require her to take a break in service prior to her placement on a temporary appointment, the Tribunal found that the three requirements of art. 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute were satisfied. The Tribunal found that, for staff on fixed-term appointments who are being reappointed under temporary appointments following the expiration of their fixed-term appointments, there is no requirement, in law, to take a break in service...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not raised a prima facie case as to warrant a suspension of action.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not raised a prima facie case that the decision was arguably unlawful or that he would suffer irreparable damage from its implementation.

i. Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found that prima facie unlawfulness had been established because the Applicant identified anomalies in the processes used by UNON. ii. Particular urgency: The Tribunal noted that the selection decision had been communicated to the selected candidate by UNON before the Applicant filed her application. As the contested decision had been implemented, the element of particular urgency had not been met. iii. Irreparable damage: The Tribunal found that the Applicant established irreparable damage in that there would be harm to her reputation and career...

The Tribunal rejects the Applicant’s submission that the expert panel did not; have the authority to compile a list of recommended candidates to the Director of the department based on its assessment of all the candidates participating in the selection process.; There is no requirement in any of the regulations, rules or policies of the; Organization for all expert panel members to undergo training in competency-based interviewing.; The Tribunal concludes that the fact that one out of three members of the expert; panel who interviewed that Applicant had not received competency-based training...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal noted that, in the letter to the; Applicant dated 19 November 2012, the Chief Human Resources and Planning Section (HRPS), informed her that her application of for the FS-5 post was not successful. The Applicant was also informed that a suitable positin had been identified for her, namely, a Claims Assistant at the G-6 level. The Tribunal found that the identification of a G-6 level post for the Applicant who at the time encumbered an FS-4 level post could not be considered a suitable position for the Applicant as required by sections 10.2...

In this case, the Applicant is a permanent staff member who contested the selection decision of a candidate other than her, as well as her non-selection, for the Post. The application before the Tribunal was filed on 8 April 2012 which is within 90 days following her receipt of the MEU’s 23 March 2012 decision. However, seeing that the initial request for management evaluation was time-barred it has no legal effect and the application before the Tribunal is therefore not receivable.

Date of implementation of the contested decision: Although the Tribunal has taken different approaches with respect to the date of implementation of selection decisions pursuant to ST/AI/2010/3, a selection decision must be considered as implemented once the Organization receives the selected candidate’s unconditional acceptance of the offer of appointment.

Starting date of the 90-day time limit to file an application: The UNDT Statute prescribes that an application before the Tribunal must be filed within 90 days following receipt of the Administration’s response to the request for management evaluation. If the Administration replies after the response period for the management evaluation but before the expiry of the 90-day period, the 90-day period to file an application before the Tribunal starts running again from the date the response is given. Evaluation criteria: It is clear from ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 and the Guidelines for programme case...

The UNDT found that the Applicant had made out a case for prima facie unlawfulness, but that the other two requirements for suspension of action – urgency and irreparable harm - were not fulfilled. It considered that the selection decision had already been implemented pursuant to Section 10.2 of ST/AI/2010/3 and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to provide interim injunctive relief. The Tribunal observed the irregularity whereby a non-selected candidate cannot have known that the decision has been implemented and is powerless under Article 2.2 of the Statute to suspend the action...