UNAT held the UNDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the UNDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant’s terms of employment. In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...
ECOSOC
Showing 1 - 2 of 2
Definition
Bias/favouritism
Gender
Subject matter (ratione materiae)
Full and fair consideration
Selection decision
Administrative decision
Discrimination and other improper motives
Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance)
Staff selection (non-selection/non-promotion)
Abuse of process before UNDT/UNAT
Costs
Compensation
Loss of chance
Staff selection (non-selection/non-promotion)
Selection decision
UNAT held that UNDT’s approach, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant, was reasonable. UNAT relied on its holding in Hastings (2011-UNAT-109), where it held that the trial court is in a much better position than UNAT in assessing the probabilities of a candidate being selected for a position. UNAT also found that UNDT correctly concluded that the Appellant should not be awarded any additional compensation beyond the amount already paid to her. UNAT further dismissed the Appellant’s request to award costs against the Secretary-General, noting that there were...