2013-Ģ��ƵAT-378

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any error in fact or law emerging from the impugned judgment. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant did not challenge the competitive procedure��s final administrative act since he only began to contest the Administration��s actions when the selected candidate was laterally moved, and another rostered candidate was appointed as a replacement. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s rights as a staff member were linked to the administrative decision that completed the selection procedure and that, as such, any breach of his rights could only be caused by that decision and not the latter one simply executed the previous selection. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s standing to challenge the qualifications of the recommended candidates came into effect when both the recommended candidate was selected and the candidate who was appointed after the lateral transfer of the first was selected for inclusion in the roster. Ģ��ƵAT held that his failure to challenge that decision precluded him from subsequently impugning the designation of the rostered candidate. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly determined that the claim was time-barred, the Appellant lacked standing, and that, as such, it was not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant contested his non-selection for a post. Ģ��ƵDT identified several administrative decisions. To the extent that Mr Ivanov could be construed as protesting either of the 15 December 2009 decisions, Ģ��ƵDT found that his request for management evaluation was late, being filed more than a month after his statutory deadline. With respect to the 15 January 2010 decision, Ģ��ƵDT held that Mr Ivanov��s request for management evaluation was made within the 60-day time limit and was not, therefore, time-barred, but that he lacked standing to contest the decision: as there was no actual direct link between the selected candidate and the Applicant��s candidacy for the post, it could not be said that any of his rights were breached by the new administrative decision. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed his application as not receivable.

Legal Principle(s)

If a staff member wishes to challenge his or her non-selection for a post, this should take the form of a challenge to the decision not to select him or her; a staff member cannot create a new opportunity of appeal by trying to challenge the subsequent appointment of one of the recommended candidates.

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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

Ivanov

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement