2011-UNAT-111

2011-UNAT-111, Sprauten

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Case 2. UNAT held that it did not matter that the start date of the contract was not mentioned in the offer itself, as the emails showed that this date was clearly given as an essential condition for the offer and that it was only subject to minimal change. UNAT held that UNDT distorted the facts by failing to recognise that, in this case, the start date was an essential condition for the offer and that, by continuing to contest it, Mr Sprauten had never unconditionally accepted the offer made to him. UNAT held that UNDT committed an error of law by finding that the withdrawal of the offer was a breach of contract and that the harm suffered as a result should be compensated. UNAT dismissed Mr Sprauten’s application submitted to UNDT, concerning the withdrawal of the offer of employment. UNAT upheld the appeal and annulled the UNDT Judgment with respect to Case 2.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Mr Sprauten contested two decisions before UNDT: first, his non-selection for a position (Case 1); and second, the withdrawal of an offer of appointment (Case 2). In Judgment No. UNDT/2010/087, UNDT found that: the contested decision in case 1 was in breach of Mr Sprauten’s contractual rights to have his candidacy adequately and properly considered, and the contested decision in case 2 was in breach of the contract to recruit him.

Legal Principle(s)

A contract is formed before the issuance of the letter of appointment by an unconditional agreement between the parties on the conditions for the appointment of a staff member if all the conditions of the offer are met by the candidate.

Outcome

Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Sprauten

Entity

UNOPS

Case Number(s)

2010-106

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York