¹ú²úAV

2017-UNAT-802

2017-UNAT-802, Riecan

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal from the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not correctly apply the law in considering Mr Riecan’s challenge to the selection for the post and made errors of law and fact in accepting the staff member’s application. On the UNDT’s finding that there was a duty of the assessment panel in the course of a selection process to consider the e-PAS reports of the candidate and reflect that consideration in its own report, UNAT held that (1) UNDT did not make reference to a specific provision providing for this duty; (2) the fact that the panel did not take into consideration the performance appraisals did not render the selection process unreasonable or unfair; and (3) the Administration has a wide discretion to choose the best evaluation method. UNAT held that UNDT improperly assumed the role of deciding which evaluation method should have been used and adopted an approach that was not institutionalized in the existing staff selection system established by the Staff Regulations and Rules. UNAT granted the Secretary-General’s appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Riecan contested the decision not to recommend him for a position. UNDT found that Mr Riecan was not given full and fair consideration in his candidacy for the position as the interview panel committed a material failure when it did not consider his performance appraisals. UNDT awarded compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

The Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. It is the role of the Tribunals to assess whether the applicable Regulations and Rules have been applied and whether they were applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner. It is not the Tribunals’ role to substitute their decision for that of the Administration.

Outcome
Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Riecan
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type