Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful on the basis that the selected candidate had more experience than the Applicant and was therefore appropriately ranked the strongest candidate. Based on the documented record and the recommendation of the Hiring Manager, the Executive Director of UN-Habitat lawfully selected the candidate best suited for the functions of the position, taking into account the Organization’s gender targets. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration had shown that the applicable procedure was followed and that the Applicant’s candidacy was...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested selection decision was lawful as the Administration appropriately exercised its discretion in selecting the selected candidate.

In the present case, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratione personae because at the date of filing it, the Applicant was not a staff member, and the contested decision did not breach the terms of his former appointment with UNOPS.

Furthermore, UNOPS and UNGSC are two different entities of the Ãå±±½ûµØsystem. While the Applicant was a former staff member of UNOPS, he had no employment relationship with UNGSC. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the contested position with UNGSC.
The Applicant acknowledged that “there...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s consent to foregoing an in-person hearing was not required, pursuant to Rule 22 of the ICAO Appeals Board Rules and ICAO Staff Rule 111.1(18).  The Appellant was advised by the ICAO Appeals Board of its intention to proceed with a summary decision and she participated in this process by making submissions without objecting to it.  Therefore, it was not an error of law for the Appeals Board of ICAO to have considered and decided the summary judgment without an in-person hearing but otherwise in compliance with due process requirements of participation therein by...

The UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the Administration had shown that Mr. Mirella’s candidature was given full and fair consideration which satisfies the presumption of regularity, and that Mr. Mirella has not proven through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance. The UNAT reviewed Mr. Mirella’s contention that the UNDT erred in finding that his exclusion from the shortlist was in compliance with Section 7.4 of ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system). Specifically, the UNAT evaluated Mr. Mirella’s argument that the Hiring Manager erroneously found that he did not meet the...

Following the recusal of his FRO from the Panel, there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would have had a better chance had his FRO been present, nor that his (the FRO’s) presence in the other CBIs gave them a better chance.  Even if the CBI panel had remained constant and identical, with the inclusion of the FRO, the record before the Tribunal demonstrates that the selected candidate was superior in her candidature.   The administration of a written test is not mandatory pursuant to the Staff Selection AI. The onus was on the Applicant to prove the alleged bias. Ill-will is not a...

UNAT held that the undisputed breach of confidentiality in the selection process provided rational grounds for the cancellation decision. UNAT held that the fact that the Appellant had access to information about his test score and that he was perhaps seeking to influence the decision through the hiring manager, rendered the selection exercise problematic and unsatisfactory. UNAT held that the perception was unavoidably created that the Appellant was inappropriately favoured with access to information about a decision concerning his interests and in respect of which he enjoyed no authority...

UNAT held the UNDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the UNDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant’s terms of employment.  In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the Administration was not legally allowed to consider seniority or career advancement in the selection process. UNAT held that it was entirely proper to make a choice between two recommended candidates based partly on their respective seniority and time already served at a particular grade. UNAT held that UNDT also erred in essentially reversing the burden of proof by requiring the Secretary-General to show that the factors considered were explicitly provided for in the legal framework rather...

UNAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that UNDT should have only received her application against the selection decision. UNAT held that the appeal was defective in that the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2. 1 of the UNAT Statute, however, UNAT considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s allegation that the case management of UNDT was flawed. UNAT held that the re...