UNDT/2018/061

UNDT/2018/061, Ndahigeze

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the impugned administrative decision was the decision not to offer the Applicant the post when the first candidate declined the offer and that it satisfied the test in Andronov (former UNAT Judgment No. 1157 (2002)) as further elaborated and clarified in Andati-Amwayi (2010-UNAT-058). The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s claim that she had a legitimate expectation of being selected for JO 39506 because while the Applicant made this allegation in her request for management evaluation, she did not raise it in her application. Further, the fact that the Applicant had been performing the duties for eight months did not in and of itself amount to a legitimate expectation to be appointed. By taking into account adverse comments that were outside the selection process and which the Applicant was never given an opportunity to challenge, MINUSMA failed to accord to the Applicant the full and fair consideration that she was entitled to. Related

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select her for a P-3 Gender Affairs Officer post (“JO 39506”).

Legal Principle(s)

Administrative decisions are characterized by the fact that they are taken by the Administration, they are unilateral and of individual application and they carry direct legal consequences. In order for a staff member’s claim of legitimate expectation to succeed, it must not be based on mere verbal assertion but on a firm commitment revealed by the circumstances of the case. When reviewing selection decisions, the role of the Tribunals is to assess whether the applicable Regulations and Rules have been applied and whether they were applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner. It is not the Tribunals’ role to substitute their decision for that of the Administration.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

The Tribunal concluded that MINUSMA failed to accord to the Applicant full and fair consideration and ordered rescission of the impugned decision or that the Respondent pay the Applicant three months’ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission.

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

Ndahigeze

Entity

MINUSMA

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2016/079

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry

Nairobi