2018-UNAT-886

2018-UNAT-886, Rehman

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as there was no procedural irregularity, and there was no evidence of harm to support moral damages, as the Appellant’s testimony alone was not sufficient evidence of harm. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment on the award of damages to the Appellant.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select her for the post and to not inform her of her non-selection. UNDT considered that the Administration had failed to notify the Applicant of her non-selection. UNDT found that the Applicant had “suffered stress and anxiety because of that procedural violation” and awarded her nominal damages. However, UNDT held that the Applicant failed to provide any proof of bias or irregularities in the recruitment process or to substantiate that her candidature had not been given full and fair consideration and rejected her application.

Legal Principle(s)

The main purpose of imposing on the Administration the obligation to inform all interviewed candidates of a selection decision is to enable the unsuccessful staff members to pursue their procedural rights, including requesting management evaluation and suspension of the recruitment process.

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.

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