Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2015/095

UNDT/2015/095, Andreev

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNDT found no impropriety in connection with the successful candidate’s lateral moves. The UNDT found that whether or not the successful candidate had two lateral moves was not determinative in this case as the Applicant was not recommended for the post for reasons unconnected to the successful candidate’s eligibility. The application was dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to include him on the list of recommended candidates for a P-5 level post of Chief, Mortality Section, Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. He also contested the selection of another candidate for that position.

Legal Principle(s)

Competency-based interviews: Some staff members may have concerns about the use of competency-based interviews, particularly the rigid application of the interview guidelines. However, competency-based interviews are an integral part of the selection process in the Organization. Application of this interview method is an attempt to implement, insofar as it is possible to do so, a selection process that is free from bias and subjectivity. However, interviews are not a robotic exercise and some degree of flexibility during the interview is not only allowed but should be encouraged, provided it does not unfairly favour or disadvantage any specific candidate and that it is within the permissible boundaries of a legitimate and necessary procedure to assess fairly and properly whether a candidate satisfies a particular competency. In making this determination, selection panels shall take into account proper factors and disregard irrelevant considerations. Above all, the task of the panel is to identify suitable candidates who meet the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity as required by art. 101.3 of the Ãå±±½ûµØCharter.

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