Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2022/094

UNDT/2022/094, Applicant

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant had no standing to contest the modality of a further recruitment process. Absent a reviewable administrative decision, the application was not receivable with respect to the principal claim. As the administration acted within the scope of its discretion, compensation was not due.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The decision not to recommend/select the Applicant for a logistics officer position at the P-4 level.

Legal Principle(s)

For the application to be receivable, the impugned decision must fall under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction rationae materie, that is, it must produce direct consequences for the terms of appointment in “a precise individual case.
Only an official communication on selection gives rise to a legitimate expectation to be accordingly promoted or appointed. The selected candidate could then challenge the cancellation decision and place the Administration under the burden of showing good cause to cancel.
Conversely, a candidate who has not been selected may challenge the decision on selection of another candidate and have it rescinded. Following a cancellation of the job opening, however, the breach of the non-selected candidate’s terms and conditions of the appointment does not arise. Such candidate may not compel the Administration to proceed with the recruitment process, either afresh, or to have the impugned process returned to a stage favourable to him/her. To construe such claim, notwithstanding dubious basis for it, would belie the competence of the SecretaryGeneral as Chief Executive Officer of the United Nations.

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable
Outcome Extra Text

The job opening was cancelled in recognition of the Applicant’s criticism of the selection decision. Absent a reviewable administrative decision, the application is not receivable with respect to the principal claim.

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