Ãå±±½ûµØ

The time limit for appeal runs from the date on which the appellant receives the Secretary General's response to her request for review. If the Administration maintains that it received it before the date indicated by the Applicant, it is up to the Administration to provide proof thereof. The minutes of the sessions held by the Appointments, Promotions, and Assignments Committee are documents allowing the judge to verify the procedure followed by the Commission. To obtain the annulment of a decision refusing promotion, the Applicant must establish either that the list of promotions was taken...

An agency relationship exists between an interview panel and a Programme Manager or Program Case Officer, such that the Programme Manager is bound by the evaluation and recommendations of the panel provided that it acts within its terms of reference. The Administration had no prerogative or power to cancel the vacancy announcement for the reasons relied upon.

An interview panel set up by a Programme Manager is the Programme Manager’s agent and as the principal, the Programme Manager is bound by the evaluation and recommendations of the panel in so far as the panel does not exceed its mandate. When a head of department having a final say in the making of a selection decision influences the outcome of an interview process and report, the resultant selection process has been unduly interfered with and its integrity compromised. It does not lie within the discretionary authority or prerogative of the Administration to evaluate both 30-day and 60 day...

The Tribunal noted that the case was one of the cases provided for under Section 4.2 of ST/SGB/2009/11 on transitional measures. At the outset, the Tribunal declared the application irreceivable with respect to any claim which had not been raised previously in the request for review to the Secretary-General. The Tribunal further raised ex officio the issue of the receivability ratione personae of the application since the decision not to select the Applicant to the post was taken when the Applicant was a former staff member. The Tribunal noted that article 3, paragraph 1 (b), of the UNDT...

UNDT found that the requirement of progressively responsible experience in the vacancy announcement was in line with the generic job profile and was not prejudicial to the applicant. The applicant’s arguments were in any case without merit as all the candidates interviewed by the selection panel had at least ten years of experience. UNDT found that, although the Organisation failed to properly carry out and document its consideration for the designation of the successful candidate to perform significant functions in financial management, this did not result in a violation of the applicant’s...

Section 5.5 of ST/SGB/2002/6 does not give the right to request the removal of a candidate’s name from the list of recommended candidates as an alternative to a request for clarification. Therefore, the selection process was procedurally flawed which gives a right to compensation. It is not the Tribunal’s competence to substitute the Administration’s decision to select between suitable candidates.

Evaluation of candidates: The record appears to reflect a careful and comprehensive examination of the claims of the various applicants. There was no problematical analysis or conclusion that suggested that the process had gone awry or was anything other than proper. Failure to notify: Sec 9.5 of ST/AI/2006/3 provides that an unsuccessful interviewed applicant should be informed by the programme that they have not been selected or rostered. This was not done. The applicant suffered no loss or additional anxiety arising out of the inappropriate and discourteous way in which she became aware of...

In his request for review to the Secretary-General, the Applicant contested the decision not to appoint him to the post of Chief (D-1), Information and Communication Technology Division, at ESCWA. Subsequently, in his appeal to the JAB, the Applicant sought to contest several other decisions. The only decision that the Tribunal is competent to examine is the decision for which administrative review was sought. The evaluation of candidates to a post falls within the discretion of the Secretary-general and the Tribunal will not substitute its views to that of the Secretary-General. However, as...

The apportionment of points was not done fairly or objectively in two respects:- Experience: logically, either both the Applicant and the selected candidate should have received the maximum 50 points or the Applicant should have been given more than the selected candidate.- Languages: the Applicant’s had five less points than the selected candidate. An objective evaluation would have given her more. Outcome: The Tribunal found that evaluation of the Applicant’s candidacy for the concerned position was not carried out in a full and fair manner and awarded her compensation in the amount of 4...

Outcome: Application dismissed, but award of a nominal compensation of USD 1,000 for procedural deficiencies in the selection process.