2019-UNAT-947

2019-UNAT-947, Madhoun

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT noted that in the absence of a university degree, the Appellant did not satisfy the academic criterion stated in the vacancy announcement, but he was long-listed, which meant that UNRWA took his experience into consideration and decided that his additional years of experience justified his pre-selection. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in fact in considering that UNRWA did not examine whether the experience of the Appellant could offset his lack of a university degree. UNAT held that the decision by UNRWA to limit the short-list to seven candidates with university degrees was reasonable and in the absence of allegations of bias or discriminatory application, the criterion related to the university degree was reasonable and could be used without any additional reference to the experience of the candidate. UNAT further ruled that UNRWA DT erred in law in considering that UNRWA did not properly apply the criteria described in the vacancy announcement. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested his non-selection for a position. UNRWA DT held that the Applicant had been unlawfully excluded from the short-list of candidates for not possessing a university degree when UNRWA had improperly applied the criteria described in its vacancy announcement, namely that a “university degree of equivalent experience” was required. UNRWA DT rescinded the impugned decision.

Legal Principle(s)

Judicial review of a staff selection decision is not for the purpose of substituting the UNDT’s decision for that of the Administration. The starting point for judicial review is the rebuttable presumption that official acts have been regularly performed.

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
Madhoun
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type