Ãå±±½ûµØ

2019-UNAT-961, Wilson

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that the case was distinguishable from Finniss (judgment No. 2014-UNAT-397) since there was no allegation of bias, discrimination, or any other kind of deteriorated or privileged relationship between the involved candidate and the Deputy CEO. UNAT disagreed with UNDT’s holding that the Deputy CEO should not have acted as a voting member of the assessment panel. UNAT held that in order to exclude the Deputy CEO’s involvement in the selection exercise, there must be reasonable grounds and/or evidence of extraneous or improper motives, of which there was none (except unsubstantiated and inconsequential rumours). UNAT held that the selection process had a built-in safeguard mechanism to keep any individual bias and preformulated opinion from influencing the selection exercise, which included two members of the assessment panel being external to UNJSPF, a staff member from the Office of Human Resources Management sitting on the panel ex officio making a recommendation to the CEO, who took the ultimate decision. UNAT held that the other circumstantial factors considered by the UNDT as possible indicators of deficiency in the selection exercise were not, by themselves, capable of invalidating, the selection process. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it concluded that the Appellant was not afforded full and fair consideration for the position. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested his non-selection for a position with UNJSPF. UNDT found that the selection process was flawed and that the Applicant did not receive full and fair consideration, chiefly because of the involvement of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Deputy CEO), UNJSPF, in the second selection exercise which constituted an actual or perceived conflict of interest. However, UNDT declined to rescind the decision or award the Applicant any monetary compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

A conflict of interest occurs when, by act or omission, a staff member’s personal interests interfere with the performance of his or her official duties and responsibilities or with the integrity, independence, and impartiality required by the staff member’s status as an international civil servant. There must be reasonable grounds and/or evidence of extraneous or improper motives in order to exclude a staff member from involvement in a selection exercise.

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