�山����

UNDT held that the decision not to select the Applicant was appropriately reviewed by the JAB panel and therefore proper. UNDT held that the requirement of relevant experience was appropriate and necessary for this particular vacancy and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. UNDT held that the JAB panel addressed the appropriate legal principles and that, in applying those princples to the facts of the case, it asked the correct questions and considered the appropriate authorities. UNDT held that the Applicant failed to satisfy it that there was any material irregularity...

The filling of the Post with the ultimately-successful candidate cannot be characterized as a “transfer”, be it lateral or not. The ultimately-successful candidate was therefore rather selected for the Post. Simply stated, the Post did not qualify as a lateral transfer. The Respndent employed the wrong procedure. The Applicants, although ranked behind the initially-successful candidate, were also “suitable” candidates for the Post. The Tribunal finds that the selection exercise for the initially-selected candidate was improper. The Applicants having been deemed by the Tribunal as suitable...

Having examined the documents and having heard the evidence from the PCO of the selection panel, the Tribunal is satisfied that there was no material irregularity in that all relevant procedures and guidelines were followed. The JAB panel’s examination of the facts is not tainted by procedural error or bias. The application before this Tribunal fails and is dismissed.

The UNDT drew an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to disclose the reasons to the UNDT and declared that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and therefore unlawful. The UNDT further found that the Administration breached its obligation to disclose the reasons for the contested decision to the Applicant. The UNDT ordered (i) compensation in the amount equivalent to six months’ net base salary and entitlements at the P-5 grade, VI step, with retroactive interest, for actual economic loss suffered, and (ii) USD8,000 as compensation for emotional distress. Applicable...

The UNDT found that the policy or practice had no legal basis in any of the norms of the Organization and was thus unlawful. The Tribunal ordered the rescission of the policy in relation to the Applicant and moral damages of three months’ net base salary. Enforcement of an unlawful policy or practice: Reports of the Fifth Committee do not carry the same legal force as General Assembly Resolutions. The Secretary-General is also not mandated, in the absence of an express statutory provision, to incorporate into a staff member’s terms of employment any policy or recommendation from a Committee...

Decision affecting the applicant’s rights: Since staff members have the right to apply to other positions under the Staff Regulations and Rules, they are entitled to contest a non-selection decision and a fortiori a decision imposing an additional condition for appointment after having been selected. Such a decision does affect the staff member’s rights and is thus open to appeal.Lack of legal basis for the condition to renounce to permanent resident status: The General Assembly never endorsed the recommendations to approve the establishment of the condition that staff members must relinquish...

The Respondent was required to act in the best interests of the Organization, when reassigning the Applicant, and it was principally for the Respondent as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization, pursuant to art. 97 of the United Nations Charter, to define what those interests were in the context of the administration of the Organization Outcome: For respondent (merits).

The Respondent is in breach of the first order for suspension of action (UNDT/2012/029) – merely providing a different reason for the non-renewal does not obviate the need to abide by the original order.

The investigation against the Applicant lacked integrity and credibility. The investigator was incompetent, exhibited bias and lacked objectivity and fairness. The Investigator’s note-taker was not only allowed to conduct part of the investigation by solely administering questions to two witnesses, she was also allowed the liberty of expressing her views on how some evidence she had elicited from a witness should not change impressions earlier formed. The investigation report was biased, unreliable and unfair. The characterisation of certain facts was done in a manner intended to draw only...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not adduced any arguments to substantiate the claim that the compensation recommended by JAB was inappropriate, insufficient or improper.