¹ú²úAV

Mr. Krioutchkov appealed. UNAT found that the UNDT correctly held that the timing of the written test was justifiable in that holding the test at a set hour worldwide was a rational way of avoiding leaks of the test materials. The inconvenience to the Administration of accommodating different test schedules outweighed the inconvenience of Mr. Krioutchkov being required to adjust his schedule. The scheduling decision was accordingly reasonable. Moreover, having refused to participate in the written examination, Mr. Krioutchkov was estopped from challenging the non-selection decision. UNAT found...

UNAT first explained that this is a case where the UNDT should have held a hearing to determine the states of mind of those persons who decided that the Staff Member should not have been placed on the roster.  The Tribunal defined bias as follows: (paras. 29 - 32) "29. Bias is an element of natural justice which examines not only the mind of the decision‑maker subjectively, but the manifestation of the process of decision-making examined objectively. Put another way, a decision is not only biased if made by a decision‑maker deliberately intending to favour or disadvantage the subject of it for...

As a preliminary issue, UNAT held that the new evidence attached to the cross-appeal by the Respondent (the Appellant on Cross-Appeal and the Applicant before UNDT) was not admissible. On the receivability of the cross-appeal, UNAT held that it was not receivable since the Respondent was the prevailing party at the first instance level and he does not claim to broaden the order of UNDT, but just to maintain it by means of an additional argument that has already been rejected by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in its judgment, although UNAT differed in its reasoning. UNAT held that the...

UNAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before UNDT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying UNAT that the UNDT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. UNAT held that Secretary-General’s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. UNAT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...

On the Appellant’s argument that the selected candidate was ineligible for consideration or selection on the basis that his tenure on the roster had expired (as per former administrative instruction ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1) and in the absence of specific guidelines, UNAT took note of the human resources practice of recognising as eligible all rostered candidates whose names were on the roster on the date of the opening of the vacancy announcement for the post. UNAT held that UNDT properly concluded that, given the existence of this practice, the successful candidate’s eligibility was covered by...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Skourikhine’s cross-appeal. With respect to the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT noted that there is no requirement in Section 9. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3 for the head of department to first review all non-rostered candidates, and it had even been amended to specifically remove such a requirement. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was contrary to ST/AI/2010/3, as the decision to do so was entirely within the Administration’s discretion, and no abuse of that discretion has been...

The first issue UNAT considered was whether UNDT erred in applying ST/AI/2010/3 to the selection of staff for the G-7 post and UNAT found that UNDT did not err in this regard. UNAT noted that the language of paragraph 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding With Respect to United Nations Personnel Procedures Application to the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund requires that “[t]he General Service staff of the [Pension] Fund secretariat shall be appointed and promoted through the normal [United Nations appointment and promotion] procedures, according to the policies applicable at the duty stations in...

UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General on material damages, UNAT held that UNDT was the body best placed to assess a candidate’s chance of selection for placement on the roster. UNAT held that the fact that there were several candidates selected from the roster in the months following the roster approval was sufficient to underpin UNDT’s assessment that the staff member’s chances were not in the realm of the speculative. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General’s cross...

UNAT considered both the two appeals by the Secretary-General and two cross-appeals by Mr Charles in judgment No. 2014-UNAT-416. UNAT held that that Section 9 of ST/AI/2010/3 was clear in giving the head of department/office the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. UNAT held that it was not open to UNDT to conclude that Section 9. 4 required the head of department/office to first review all non-rostered candidates before selecting a rostered candidate. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was...

UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. UNAT found no errors of fact or law by UNDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. UNAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...