Ãå±±½ûµØ

2018-UNAT-880

2018-UNAT-880, Munyan

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

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 that a mistake was being corrected. UNAT found no error in the UNDT’s finding that the removal of the Applicant’s name from the list without further examining the qualifications was a procedural irregularity, as conceded by the Secretary-General in the UNDT hearing. UNAT held that it is not admissible for the Secretary-General to introduce new grounds of appeal which were not part of his case before the UNDT and that the submissions contesting the compensation awarded to the Applicant were entirely without merit. UNAT held that the Secretary-General, in presenting on appeal factual and legal arguments which directly contradicted his submissions to UNDT, had manifestly abused the appeals process. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to not recommend him for the post and not to place him on the roster of pre-approved candidates for openings with similar functions at the same level. UNDT found that the contested decision was flawed, the Organisation having failed to minimally show that the candidacy had been fully and fairly considered, and therefore the decisions not to select him for the post and/or place him on the roster were unlawful. UNDT ordered rescission of the contested decisions or, alternatively, a pecuniary compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

It is not admissible for the Secretary-General to introduce new grounds of appeal which were not part of his case before UNDT. Article 10. 5(a) of the UNDT Statute creates a mandatory requirement upon UNDT to set an amount of compensation as an alternative to an order rescinding a decision concerning an appointment, promotion, or termination.

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.

Applicants/ Appellants
Munyan
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type