Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or irregular manner. UNAT held that accounting for factors such as UNAMID’s scorecard with respect to gender targets and the selected candidate’s proficiency in Arabic did not amount to discrimination and that it was in the Secretary-General’s discretion to do so. UNAT held that no evidence had been presented to it by the Appellant to support the contention that his application was not given full and fair consideration. UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to show through clear and...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. UNAT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. UNAT held that the claim in Appellant’s Appeal was not initially brought before UNRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before UNAT. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that UNRWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the Secretary-General’s appeal was in direct conflict with his submissions to UNDT. While the Secretary-General acknowledged procedural irregularities by the Hiring Manager to UNDT, in his appeal he argued that no irregularities happened in removing the Applicant’s name from the list and that the Hiring Manager was entitled to exercise her discretion and correct her mistakes after further assessing the candidate’s qualifications. UNAT held that no evidence was presented to UNDT of a second assessment by the Hiring Manager or...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the Hiring Manuals binding on the Administration, nonetheless, confirming that the Hiring Manager’s reliance on the shortlist prepared by the CSS/OSU constituted a procedural irregularity in terms of Section 7. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3, which undisputedly enjoys binding legal authority. UNAT held that such irregularities only result in the rescission of a non-selection decision or of the decision not to shortlist a candidate in case the candidate had a significant chance, which could not be verified in this case, the same logic being applicable to compensation for...

UNAT considered the receivability of the issue of non-renewal and whether UNDT erred in rejecting the Appellant’s claim that his candidacy for the relevant post had not been given full and fair consideration. UNAT referenced Staff Rule 11. 2(a), which provides that it is an established principle that a request for management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision. UNAT further noted that UNDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of review. UNAT found no fault...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT found no reason to differ from UNDT’s conclusion. UNAT found that the applicable procedural requirements were followed, and the evidence did not supersede the presumption of regularity of the administrative decision. UNAT further noted that the Appellant was afforded full and fair consideration and that he failed to establish any bias by the members of the panel. UNAT also held that the Appellant forewent the required procedures for filing complaints of discrimination and failed to provide evidence that he was the target of the restructuring exercise or that it...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. UNAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by UNRWA in tranche 2 list. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. UNAT held that the Appellant had...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it held that Staff Rules 4.4 and 4.5 established different recruitment regimes for professional and general service staff, clarifying that they establish different allowances and benefits regimes for local and international recruitment. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it found that it was illegal to restrict a temporary job opening at the professional level to local recruitment. UNAT held that UNDT contradicted UNAT’s jurisprudence on the wide inherent discretion conferred upon the Secretary-General...

On the Appellant’s complaint that the non-selection decision was tainted by procedural irregularity and bias, UNAT noted that the presence of two directors from the Education Department on the interview panel did not offend UNRWA’s regulatory framework. UNAT held that it was possible to infer reasonably from the interview panel’s analysis and its sympathetic view of the Appellant that, on the probabilities, it was not prejudiced against her on the basis alleged. UNAT held that it was evident from the seniority of the position and the role that the incumbent of the post would be required to...

UNAT held that the case was distinguishable from Finniss (judgment No. 2014-UNAT-397) since there was no allegation of bias, discrimination, or any other kind of deteriorated or privileged relationship between the involved candidate and the Deputy CEO. UNAT disagreed with UNDT’s holding that the Deputy CEO should not have acted as a voting member of the assessment panel. UNAT held that in order to exclude the Deputy CEO’s involvement in the selection exercise, there must be reasonable grounds and/or evidence of extraneous or improper motives, of which there was none (except unsubstantiated and...