¹ú²úAV

Temporary reassignment: The characteristic of a temporary reassignment is its limited duration. From the outset, it is clear that it has an expiration date and that, unless renewed by a subsequent discretionary decision, it will come to an end naturally on the date specified for this purpose. The natural outcome of a temporary assignment is the staff member’s return to his/her original duties. Accordingly, a staff member on temporary reassignment has no entitlement or legal expectancy to have such reassignment extended. The decision not to extend a temporary reassignment is within the...

Disclosure: The Respondent’s disclosure obligation in proceedings concerning appointment and promotion is twofold. Firstly, the Respondent shall produce evidence to satisfy his own burden to minimally show that the staff member’s candidature was given full and fair consideration. Secondly, the Respondent shall disclose any document in his possession that is relevant to the determination of the Applicant’s case, as presented in his or her application. This duty of candour that falls on the Respondent is necessary to ensure that staff members have access to justice. When the Respondent fails to...

It was not disputed that the procedural flaws identified by Judgment Rodriguez-Viquez UNDT/2016/030 in respect of the Second Round of the 2013 Promotions Session for candidates for promotion to the P-5 level also vitiated the consideration of candidates to the D-1 level and thus impacted on the Applicant’s chances to be promoted. The Tribunal noted that it was difficult to ascertain the chances that the Applicant had to be promoted but it was uncontested that they were significant. The Tribunal thus rescinded the contested decision. The Tribunal referred to Rodriguez-Viquez whereby the...

Assessment process; The Tribunal notes that in her entire application, the Applicant did not provide any proof of the allegations of bias and the negative influence of the Chief of Human Resources in the recruitment process. The Applicant’s further allegations of irregularity in the recruitment process have equally not been substantiated.; Since the Applicant was found not to be a suitable candidate and consequently not among the recommend[ed] candidates, her arguments on the lack of application of the gender parity considerations and the recruitment of an external candidate are not matters...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in the present case was the High Commissioner’s decision of 17 October 2014, which considered the Applicant’s candidacy for promotion at the P-5 level, notified to the Applicant on 20 October 2014. This decision was not subject to any further review or superseded by a new one.; The Tribunal noted that the decision of 2 March 2015 did not consider the Applicant’s recourse application on the merits as it was filed out of time, which left the original decision of 17 October 2014 undisturbed. The Tribunal therefore found that the decision of 2 March...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not received the fullest regard due to him as an internal candidate. The Tribunal found it appropriate in this case to award USD5,000 as compensation for the loss of opportunity and USD4,000 for moral damages. Related

The Tribunal had to determine whether a valid contract existed between the Applicant and UNISFA, and, in the affirmative, whether the decision not to proceed with his on-boarding was illegal. The Tribunal considered that for the conditions of Gabaldon to apply, it is necessary that the offer of employment extended to a candidate be based on a selection decision made by the person disposing of the relevant delegated authority. Legal framework for delegation of authority to make the selection decision The Tribunal was of the view that at the time of the contested decision in accordance with the...

Receivability The Tribunal noted that the time UNMIK’s Administration took to provide the Applicant with a copy of the outcome of his rebuttal, and to transmit the rebuttal panel’s report to OHRM in New York in order for it to be placed in the Applicant’s OSF, are both administrative inactions susceptible to affect the Applicant’s rights stemming from ST/AI/2010/5 (Performance Management and Development System). Almost twenty months elapsed between the completion of the Applicant’s rebuttal and UNMIK’s transmission of the rebuttal panel’s report to OHRM. During that period, the Applicant’s...

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...

The Tribunal was of the view that, essentially, the Applicant attempted to create an administrative decision in an attempt to contest it. Whilst the approach discloses some imagination on the part of the Applicant, the absence of a response by the High Commissioner to the Applicant’s request does not create any direct legal consequence for him. Thus, there is no administrative decision, directly or by implication, that the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to consider. The Applicant has no right to make an appeal in respect of matters to which he was not a party. Indeed, the Applicant did not...