2011-UNAT-149

2011-UNAT-149, Verschuur

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it was not for the head of department to intervene in the evaluation process conducted by the programme manager, the Central Review Body and, where applicable, the panel. UNAT held that the head of department is not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who have been recognised as qualified. UNAT held that the Executive Director’s actions disregarded Mr Verschur’s right to benefit from the advantage of being included on the roster for a year and she acted against the interests of the Organisation, which she deprived of candidates whose qualification had already been recognised in order to fill vacancies for similar positions. UNAT held that the UNDT rightly found that the manner in which the changes to the list of candidates had been requested clearly amounted to improper interference in the evaluation process. On the quantum of compensation determined by UNDT, UNAT noted that the Appellant had not formulated arguments to contest it in the light of the criteria set forth in Solanki (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-044). UNAT held that the judge of the first instance was best placed to determine the level of compensation. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to exclude him from the list of candidates transmitted to the Central Review Body despite the fact that he had been recommended by the panel and, consequently, not to include him in the roster of candidates approved to fill any subsequent vacancies with similar functions. UNDT found that the duty of the head of department (in this case the Executive Director) was to transmit the proposal submitted to him or her by the Programme Manager to the Central Review Body. UNDT found that the Executive Director had unlawfully intervened by substituting her own opinion with that of the panel and that she had manipulated the selection process by influencing the interview panel to drop the name of Mr. Verchuur and two other candidates from the list of recommended candidates. UNDT held that the interference and manipulation impinged the integrity of the selection process as Mr. Verchuur was therefore not included on the roster of approved candidates and consequently incurred a prejudice. UNDT found that the Programme Manager did not have the mandate to decide considering eligible 30-day candidates along with 60-day candidates. UNDT found that he had a duty to consider candidates who were eligible at the 30-day mark but failed to do so. UNDT found that the selection process had not been conducted in accordance with the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3, and that Mr Verschuur’s right to fair and full consideration had not been respected. UNDT awarded six months’ net base salary compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

The judge of the first instance is best placed to determine the level of compensation.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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

Verschuur

Entity

UN-Habitat

Case Number(s)

2010-148

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York