����AV

ST/AI/2020/5 only applies to selection decision where the selection decision is made from either (a) “a list of candidates” that was “endorsed by a central review body” or (b) a competitive examination roster. None of these situations apply in this case. It is unchallenged that the contested selection decision was governed by ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system), which in sec. 3.1 provides that “[t]he process leading to selection and appointment to the D-2 level shall be governed by the provisions of the present administrative instruction”. As per sec. 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1, for a...

Mr. Moulana appealed the UNDT judgment.  

UNATnoted that the UNDT dismissed Mr. Moulana's application on the grounds of insufficient evidence, whereas he had not been afforded the opportunity to provide the evidence. UNAT held that the UNDT, by failing to address the Appellant’s requests for the production of documents, including ignoring his motion, violated the Appellant’s due process rights and deprived him of the opportunity to have his motion assessed and possibly granted, following which he could have submitted the pieces of evidence which the UNDT found he failed to provide.  Therefore...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that UNDT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of UNDT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s submission that UNDT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from...

UNAT considered all arguments made on appeal. UNAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in UNDT’s findings. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s findings that the Approving Authority’s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. UNAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly held that there had been compliance with all procedural obligations for a temporary appointment with regard to having two persons on the interview panel and that the selection exercise was not required to be reviewed by a CRB. UNAT held that there was no duty imposed on the Administration to place unsuccessful candidates on a roster of pre-approved candidates. UNAT held that there was no evidence of any discrimination or harassment or any basis for awarding the Appellant any damages for moral injury. UNAT held that UNDT committed no error of law, fact, or...

The decision by the Chief of the Human Resources Services Section (HRSS) to discontinue the selection process without a proper determination that the recruitment procedures had not been followed precisely was an abuse of the Administration’s discretionary authority. While the Applicant had only been “recommended” for the post by the ASP and had not been “selected”, the serious procedural irregularity that resulted from the Chief of HRSS’ actions prevented his candidacy from proceeding to the central review body and therefore amounted to a violation of his rights. The decision was an abuse of...

Based on the JAB recommendation, the Secretary-General had previously awarded the Applicant the amount of USD23,400 (three months net base salary) in compensation for an error in the consideration of her academic qualifications during the selection process. The Tribunal found that, in addition to the above-mentioned error, a number of substantial procedural irregularities had tainted the selection process, including the fact that the Senior Review Group had failed to pre-approve the evaluation criteria as required by ST/AI/2002/4 and met without having developed and published its own...

The Tribunal found that there was a failure of procedure and a violation of the Applicant’s rights during both selection exercises. In this respect, the Tribunal held that the decision not to select the Applicant for the New York post was unlawful as the selection process was tainted by prejudice, which resulted in his candidacy not being given full and fair consideration. With respect to the Vienna post, the Tribunal held that once the programme case officer decided to test and interview the Applicant, who was a roster candidate, afresh with new candidates, it was inherently unfair for the...

The Applicant applied twice for the position of Director of Investigations, Office of Internal Oversight Services (“OIOS”) (“the Post”) at the D-2 level. The Post was first advertised in a vacancy announcement in 2008 and again in 2009. A selection panel set up by OIOS recommended him as the only qualified candidate for the Post in each instance. Neither of these recommendations was approved by the Special Review Group (“SRG”) and, as a result, no appointment was made to the Post. A third vacancy announcement was issued, for which the Applicant did not apply. The Applicant submits that he...

The Tribunal ruled that the selection procedure was flawed on grounds that: (a) first and foremost, the evaluations of the candidates as agreed to by the panel had been substantially modified prior to their transmission to the Director-General, UNOG, for the final decision, without the approval of the panel members; (b) the panel gave the Applicants misleading instructions during the interview that impacted negatively on their ratings; (c) the Director-General, UNOG, was not demonstrably provided with a documented record enabling him to make an informed selection decision; (d) no written...