�山����

The Tribunal held that there was no breach of the applicable procedures in the selection process. The Administration acted in accordance with the UNIFIL guidelines for the selection of staff members. The Applicant was clearly given a full and fair consideration as demonstrated by the fact that she advanced through the process until the final stage. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

With regard to GJO No. 425940, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been notified on 19 February 2014 that his application had been unsuccessful. The Applicant did not request management evaluation of that decision until over four years later. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim relating to GJO No. 425940 was not receivable ratione materiae and it was dismissed. For GJO No. 76109, the Tribunal held that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that the Administration did not give his candidacy fair and adequate...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity and proved with clear and convincing evidence that his non-selection was based on improper motive.

The Applicant’s claims of ulterior motive are unsubstantiated. The preferential consideration of female candidates only applies when women are under-represented according to sec. 3(c) of the memorandum from the Secretary-General of 11 February 2019 on the implementation of ST/AI/1999/9 (Special measures for the achievement of gender equality). The evidence shows, however, that women are not under-represented in the relevant unit. Therefore, the Applicant was not entitled to preferential consideration due to her gender. The Administration has shown that the applicable procedure was followed...

The Respondent has minimally shown that the Applicant received a full and fair consideration. The Applicant was lawfully not selected for the Post, as her test result was below the passing score. The requirements the written test directly related to the responsibilities of the contested position. There was no indication of any alterations or discrepancies with the marking methodology. The Organization does not have a promotion system where managers are obligated to develop and train supervisees for promotion opportunities and assist them in career growth and, therefore, job applicants have no...

The investigation complied with the requirements set out in ST/SGB/2008/5 and the Applicant was afforded proper due process. The provisions of ST/SGB/2008/5 do not grant a right to staff members who bring complaints of prohibited conduct given to interview certain witnesses in order to confront his accusersand therefore finds no merit to this claim of an irregularity. The Fact-Finding Panel fully considered all relevant and material aspects of the Applicant’s complaint. In smaller entities in the Organization, a head of office may also be required to act as a Second Reporting Officer (“SRO”)...

Any changes to the Applicant’s functions were simply a result of a change in management style by which the new head of department put herself more in center of the Applicant office’s work. The Applicant’s responsibilities were accordingly more aligned with her P-5 level and her job description rather than undertaking tasks at the D-1 level.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety. It held that the impugned decision was lawful because there was nothing on the record to suggest that the Respondent had acted outside the scope of lawful discretion in designing and conducting the selection process. In addition, the Applicant had not demonstrated that in his evaluation relevant material had not been taken into consideration.

The Respondent did not select the Applicant for GJO 71792 because he failed a competency-based interview. Passing a competency-based interview is a lawful requirement envisioned by art. 101.3 of the United Nations Charter and set by the Staff Regulations and Rules that form an integral part of the Applicant’s terms of employment. The Respondent complied with all the relevant statutory requirements in the selection process leading to the contested decision. It was clear from the jurisprudence that the Applicant’s argument that the Administration should have considered his previous scores in...

Public interest, transparency, scrutiny and accountability are not impaired by the removal of the Applicant’s name from the public domain. Consequently, and taking into consideration the sensitive nature of the facts, which involve alleged “sexual exploitation of a vulnerable person”, the Tribunal grants the Applicant’s request for anonymity. The decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment, communicated to him on 23 September 2019, is not grounded on disciplinary considerations, which were the subject of the instant case, and constitutes an autonomous administrative decision...