2017-UNAT-795

2017-UNAT-795, Rehman

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the application was moot as the Appellant had already received the relief she requested, namely, the repetition of the selection exercise and her participation in it. UNAT found no reason to differ from UNDT’s approach. UNAT supported UNDT’s recommendation that tests be protected against the possibility of editing or alteration and further recommended that the Organisation strictly complied with its legal framework, particularly with respect to not entrusting staff functions to consultants and/or individual contractors. UNAT suggested that UNDT and the Registries grant parties to a case automatic access to the full record, including records of hearings, except those filed and kept ex parte in conformity with the need for transparency and in keeping with the adversarial principle. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select her for a post. UNDT rejected the application. UNDT found that: (i) the record did not support an inference that the Applicant’s test, which was part of the selection process, had been altered; (ii) any irregularity (such as entrusting staff functions to a consultant) did not impact her right to a full and fair consideration; (iii) she did not provide evidence in support of bias or any other improper motive; and (iv) it was not mandatory for the Administration to consider her for a lateral reassignment. UNDT found that, even if the decision had been illegal, the application was now moot as the Applicant had received the relief she requested.

Legal Principle(s)

An application may be declared moot when an individual has already received the relief he or she requested.

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

Rehman

Entity

UNICEF

Case Number(s)

2017-1080

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York