2022-UNAT-1287

2022-UNAT-1287, Yussuf Ahmed Hassan

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Mr. Hassan appealed the UNDT judgment.

The UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the UNDT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. UNAT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of appointment which could possibly give rise to an argument of a “quasi-contract” so as to confer jurisdiction over the Appellant’s claims. Finally, UNAT held that UNDT made no error by deciding to proceed by way of summary judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr. Hassan, a former staff member of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), contested his non-selection for a new position of Resettlement Associate in UNHCR to which he applied after his separation from service. In a summary judgment decision No. UNDT/2021/114, the UNDT dismissed his application as not receivable ratione personae.

Legal Principle(s)

Article 3(1) of the UNDT Statute limits the jurisdiction ratione personae of the UNDT. The UNDT shall be competent to hear and pass judgment on applications of staff members, former staff members or representatives of incapacitated or deceased staff members of the Organization. However, under established jurisprudence, before a person may be regarded as a former staff member in terms of Article 3 of the UNDT Statute, there must be a sufficient nexus between the former employment and the contested decision. The sufficient nexus exists when the challenged decision has bearing on an applicant’s former status as a staff member, specifically when it affects his or her prior terms of appointment.

The limits on personal jurisdiction mean that ordinarily the UNDT will not have the authority to receive applications by job applicants alleging illegality, unfairness or discrimination in the recruitment process.

Summary judgment may be issued by the UNDT when there is no dispute concerning the facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It can be issued either in response to a party's request or on the Dispute Tribunal's own initiative.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Yussuf Ahmed Hassan

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :