AV

UNDT/2020/095

UNDT/2020/095, Ross

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant applied for JO 57267 as a former staff member, and in the same capacity he filed his challenge to the non-selection decision for JO 57267. There was no nexus between the Applicant’s former employment with UNHCR and his standing as an applicant for JO 57267. The alleged fact that UNHCR in their recruitment processes applied the legal fiction of treating former staff members as internal applicants for a period of time, did not create a nexus extending over any other recruitment processes, such as the contested one.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to not appoint him to the position of Legal Officer, at the P-4 level, in the Office of Human Resources Management (“OHRM”), Nairobi, job opening number 57267 (“JO 57267”).

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the UNDT Statute, a necessary condition for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is that the impugned decision concerns the terms of appointment or the contract of employment such as it stood at the time when the applicant was a staff member. Thus, a former staff member may contest a decision not to renew their appointment, as such decisions relate to the terms of the staff member’s former appointment. Conversely, the status of a former staff member per se does not grant access to the Tribunal regarding administrative decisions which occur outside the framework of the former employment relation between a staff member and the Organization, such as is pertinent to a new employment relation which does not involve a staff member status (official other than staff, consultant).

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable
Outcome Extra Text

The application was not receivable because the impugned decision did not violate the Applicant’s former terms of appointment.

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
Ross
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type