UNDT/2009/084 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

UNDT/2009/084, Wu

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The decision was illegal since the Applicant, as a 15-day mark candidate, had been found suitable and therefore, in application of Section 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3, the Administration was precluded from considering and selecting 30-day mark candidates. The Administration is bound to strictly adhere to the unambiguous terms of an administrative instruction.The Administration has discretionary power to set down reasonable standards to determine if a candidate has “working knowledge” of a certain language, which it did in the present case.The Administration, in its dealing with staff members, has to act in good faith, which applies to inform Applicants who applied to a post in due time of the outcome of the selection process. Outcome: The Applicant was granted two months net-base salary at the moment of the judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant, at the time of the decision a P-4 Chinese Reviser at UNON, contests a decision of the Secretary-General not to select him for one of two posts issued in the same VA as Chinese Reviser at the P-4 level at UNOG. The two selected candidates were both at the P-3 level. The Applicant was subsequently selected for a P-4 Chinese Reviser post at UNOG a few months later.

Legal Principle(s)

Financial compensation (under Article 10.5 (b) of the UNDT Statute) must be proportionate to the injury suffered, having in mind the maximum amount as determined in Article 10.5 (b) of the UNDT Statute. Even if an Applicant did not suffer any financial damage, the immaterial injury caused to him/her by an illegal administrative decision may warrant compensation for the negative effects of the proven breach. To determine the amount of compensation, the particular circumstances of a given case have to be taken into account, e.g. the number of breaches and their intensity as well as the impact the established breaches have on its victim

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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

Entity

UNOG

Case Number(s)

UNDT/GVA/2009/012

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Geneva

Date of Judgment