¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2020/144, Neocleous

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal finds that the mere fact that the Applicant was not invited to a competencybased interview following the written assessment did not give rise to an administrative decision, and that such a step of the selection process may only be challenged in the context of an application against a specific decision with clear and direct legal consequences on the Applicant, such as the final selection decision. The Tribunal has accepted in the past that certain intermediate decisions in a selection process—such as when a candidate is found not suitable/ineligible for a given post— constitute administrative decisions that can be challenged without having to wait for the finalization of a recruitment. The Applicant’s case, however, is distinguishable from these precedents. At the latest, the Applicant became aware of his non-selection on 1 August 2018, when the successful candidate assumed functions, and there is no documentary evidence that the Applicant requested management evaluation of his non-selection, which was a mandatory first step to contest the outcome of the recruitment process. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds the application inadmissible and rejects it in its entirety.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contests his exclusion from the oral interviews held in connection with a recruitment process.

Legal Principle(s)

A request for a management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision; this first step is mandatory.

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable

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
Neocleous
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Applicable Law