UNDT/2013/030

UNDT/2013/030, Charles

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant applied for a P-3 level temporary position advertised in October 2011. As part of the selection process, he was required to sit a written test. However, the Administration refused to accept his answers to the test on the basis that they were submitted after the specified deadline, which the Applicant disputed before the UNDT. The UNDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant filed it more than eight months after the expiration of the applicable time limit for filing with the UNDT and that the Applicant failed to provide an adequate basis to support a finding of exceptional circumstances or exceptional case warranting a waiver or extension of time. The UNDT found that, even if the application were found receivable, it would not have prevailed on its merits. Having agreed to undertake the written test, the onus was on the Applicant to check his emails for further instructions, which he failed to do in due time. The UNDT found that the actions of the Administration with respect to the written exercise were reasonable and lawful.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Non-selection.

Legal Principle(s)

Exceptional circumstances, exceptional case: A number of factors should be considered in determining whether the case under review is an “exceptional case” under art. 8.3 of the Tribunal’s Statute, see the list in Fedoroff UNDT/2010/016.Examination and tests: If a staff member agrees to undertake a written test as part of a selection exercise, the staff member is expected to check for and comply with the instructions for the test.

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