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...
ST/AI/2020/5
-
Medical Clearances and Fitness to Work (UNHCR/AI/2022/03)
1
-
MONUSCO AI No. 2013/15
1
-
ST/A1/371/Amend.1
4
-
ST/AI/149/Rev.4
8
-
ST/AI/155/Rev.2
16
-
ST/AI/189/Add.6/Rev.4
1
-
ST/AI/189/Add.6/Rev.5
1
-
ST/AI/1994/4
1
-
ST/AI/1997/4
1
-
ST/AI/1997/6
1
-
ST/AI/1997/7
2
-
ST/AI/1998/1
4
-
ST/AI/1998/4
1
-
ST/AI/1998/7
4
-
ST/AI/1998/7/Amend.1
1
-
ST/AI/1998/9
55
-
ST/AI/1999/111
2
-
ST/AI/1999/12
1
-
ST/AI/1999/13
4
-
ST/AI/1999/16
10
-
ST/AI/1999/17
14
-
³§°Õ/´¡±õ/1999/17​
1
-
ST/AI/1999/3
1
-
ST/AI/1999/6
1
-
ST/AI/1999/7
2
-
ST/AI/1999/8
2
-
ST/AI/1999/9
18
-
ST/AI/2000/1
7
-
ST/AI/2000/10
2
-
ST/AI/2000/11
1
-
ST/AI/2000/12
4
-
ST/AI/2000/13
5
-
ST/AI/2000/16
1
-
ST/AI/2000/19
1
-
ST/AI/2000/20
1
-
ST/AI/2000/4
2
-
ST/AI/2000/5
2
-
ST/AI/2000/6
1
-
ST/AI/2000/8
2
-
ST/AI/2000/8/Amend.2
1
-
ST/AI/2000/9
1
-
ST/AI/2001/2
1
-
ST/AI/2001/7/Rev.1
1
-
ST/AI/2001/8
1
-
ST/AI/2002/1
1
-
ST/AI/2002/3
47
-
ST/AI/2002/4
19
-
ST/AI/2003/1
2
-
ST/AI/2003/3
8
-
ST/AI/2003/4
1
-
ST/AI/2003/7
2
-
ST/AI/2003/8
8
-
ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2
4
-
ST/AI/2004/1
3
-
ST/AI/2004/3
5
-
ST/AI/2005/12
3
-
ST/AI/2005/2
5
-
ST/AI/2005/2/Amend.2
2
-
ST/AI/2005/3
21
-
ST/AI/2005/3/Amend.1
4
-
ST/AI/2005/3/Section 3.2
1
-
ST/AI/2005/5
1
-
ST/AI/2006
1
-
ST/AI/2006/3
66
-
ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1
16
-
ST/AI/2006/4
3
-
ST/AI/2006/5
18
-
ST/AI/2006/5/Section 11
1
-
ST/AI/2007/1
7
-
ST/AI/2007/3
9
-
ST/AI/2008/3
1
-
ST/AI/2008/5
2
-
ST/AI/2009/1
22
-
ST/AI/2009/10
2
-
ST/AI/2010/1
1
-
ST/AI/2010/12
1
-
ST/AI/2010/3
186
-
ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1
1
-
ST/AI/2010/3/Amend.1
9
-
ST/AI/2010/3/Section 11.1
4
-
ST/AI/2010/3/Section 2.5
1
-
ST/AI/2010/3/Section 6.1
1
-
ST/AI/2010/3/Section 6.5
1
-
ST/AI/2010/3/Section 7.5
1
-
ST/AI/2010/3/Section 9.3
2
-
ST/AI/2010/4
15
-
ST/AI/2010/4/Rev.1
49
-
ST/AI/2010/5
71
-
ST/AI/2010/5/Corr.1
1
-
ST/AI/2010/5/Section 15.1
1
-
ST/AI/2010/5/Section 15.7
1
-
ST/AI/2010/5/Section 4
1
-
ST/AI/2010/5/Section 7
1
-
ST/AI/2010/6
3
-
ST/AI/2010/7
3
-
ST/AI/2011/3
1
-
ST/AI/2011/4
9
-
ST/AI/2011/5
6
-
ST/AI/2011/6
6
-
ST/AI/2011/7
2
-
ST/AI/2012/1
3
-
ST/AI/2012/2
2
-
ST/AI/2012/2/Rev. 1
4
-
ST/AI/2012/2/Rev.1
3
-
ST/AI/2012/3
7
-
ST/AI/2012/Rev.1
1
-
ST/AI/2013/1
14
-
ST/AI/2013/1/Corr. 1
1
-
ST/AI/2013/3
2
-
ST/AI/2013/4
64
-
ST/AI/2015/2
1
-
ST/AI/2016/1
7
-
ST/AI/2016/2
3
-
ST/AI/2016/6
0
-
ST/AI/2016/8
5
-
ST/AI/2017/1
77
-
ST/AI/2017/2
1
-
ST/AI/2018/1
2
-
ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1
10
-
ST/AI/2018/10
1
-
ST/AI/2018/10
0
-
ST/AI/2018/10/Corr.1
0
-
ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1: sec. 6.1 and sec. 6.2
1
-
ST/AI/2018/5
2
-
ST/AI/2018/6
2
-
ST/AI/2018/7
32
-
ST/AI/2019/1
4
-
ST/AI/2019/1/Section 4.3
2
-
ST/AI/2019/3/Rev.1
0
-
ST/AI/2020/3
2
-
ST/AI/2020/5
3
-
ST/AI/2021/4
4
-
ST/AI/222
3
-
ST/AI/234
4
-
ST/AI/234/Rev.1
23
-
ST/AI/234/Rev.1/Amend.1
1
-
ST/AI/240/Rev.2
2
-
ST/AI/246
1
-
ST/AI/273
2
-
ST/AI/292
23
-
ST/AI/293
12
-
ST/AI/294
1
-
ST/AI/299
4
-
ST/AI/308/Rev.1
3
-
ST/AI/309/Rev.2
4
-
ST/AI/326
1
-
ST/AI/343
1
-
ST/AI/367
2
-
ST/AI/371
111
-
ST/AI/371/Amend.1
16
-
ST/AI/372
2
-
ST/AI/379
9
-
ST/AI/394
1
-
ST/AI/397
1
-
ST/AI/400
15
-
ST/AI/401
2
-
ST/AI/404
6
-
ST/AI/408
2
-
ST/AI/411
1
-
ST/Al/2010/5
3
-
UNHCR/AI/2016/3
1
-
UNHCR/AI/2019/16/Corrigendum ((Administrative Instruction on the Management of Temporary Appointments)
1
-
UNHCR/AI/2019/7/Rev.1
1
-
UNMISS AI No. 005/2011
1
-
UNOPS Administrative Instruction Concerning Contract Renewals of Staff Members 2010 AI/HPRG/2010/02
1
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.
UNAT held that there was no express rescission of the impugned decision by the Administration. UNAT held that monthly renewals pending the outcome of the rebuttal of a performance evaluation did not resolve the complaint of the non-renewal of the fixed-term appointment. UNAT held that the monthly renewals did not rescind or supersede the impugned decision and the application could not be considered moot. UNAT held that UNDT erred in its decision, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, and remanded the matter to UNDT for proper...