Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Outcome: Application dismissed as the preponderance of evidence demonstrated that the applicant¡¯s candidature had been given full and fair consideration.

The former Staff Regulations provided that: ¡°For the purpose of these Regulations, the expressions ¡®United Nations Secretariat¡¯, ¡®staff member¡¯ or ¡®staff¡¯ shall refer to all staff members of the Secretariat [¡­].¡± Former staff rule 104.10 (a) prohibited the recruitment of the father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister of a staff member, except where another person equally well qualified could not be recruited. It results from the foregoing that candidates who have a family relationship with a staff member working for an entity part of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Secretariat are precluded from recruitment to a...

The advertisement of a vacancy announcement is an action in rem, not in personam. In the present case, the Applicant failed to prove that the failure on the part of the Respondent to advertise the total number of posts to be filled in the vacancy announcement was a material error which violated his rights. With respect to the various allegations of discrimination, favouritism, corruption, lack of transparency, forgery, gambling, impunity, and abuse of authority in the selection system at stake, the Applicant failed to prove his pleas

The applicant, then a staff member, applied and was short-listed for the Galaxy-advertised post of ASG/DESA. The notice stated that the candidacies of all Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff members were to be ¡°considered first¡±, that is to say, in priority to external candidates, and via a procedure akin to that of ST/AI/2006/3. The person appointed was not a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member and the applicant challenged the decision to appoint them. At around the time of the applicant¡¯s application for the post, he was the subject of various widely publicized investigations. The respondent initially claimed that the decision not to...

A re-trial would be unduly wasteful of time and resources. The Respondent was adequately represented especially as no oral evidence was tendered by the Applicant and the issue of cross- examining a witness did not arise. Full equality was accorded the parties in the circumstances. The onus lies on the Respondent to show that the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3 had been complied with in this case in order to prove that the Applicant was fully, fairly and properly considered. This onus has not been discharged.The Applicant¡¯s candidature was not considered at the 15-day mark as required by the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the requirement of progressively responsible experience in the vacancy announcement was in line with the generic job profile and was not prejudicial to the applicant. The applicant¡¯s arguments were in any case without merit as all the candidates interviewed by the selection panel had at least ten years of experience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, although the Organisation failed to properly carry out and document its consideration for the designation of the successful candidate to perform significant functions in financial management, this did not result in a violation of the applicant¡¯s...

Section 5.5 of ST/SGB/2002/6 does not give the right to request the removal of a candidate¡¯s name from the list of recommended candidates as an alternative to a request for clarification. Therefore, the selection process was procedurally flawed which gives a right to compensation. It is not the Tribunal¡¯s competence to substitute the Administration¡¯s decision to select between suitable candidates.

The applicant, a P-3 level staff member, applied for the P-4 post of Chief of her Unit. She was not selected. It later transpired that the applicant had initially received the highest score, but her supervisors, who participated in the selection, increased the successful candidate¡¯s score. This resulted in the successful candidate being ranked higher than the applicant. The Secretary-General agreed with the finding of the Joint Appeals Board that the applicant¡¯s rights were violated and awarded her compensation in the amount of three months¡¯ salary. The applicant appealed, seeking additional...

Case 1. Mere knowledge of or acquaintance with one or more candidates by an interview panel member does not disqualify her or him from being on the panel. It would be otherwise if there were a personal relationship (such as family or friendship) with or personal antipathy for a candidate. The practical apprehension that objective and independent assessment will be adversely affected, quite apart from any issue of fairness, is improper. Where a panel member has another interest that could significantly affect his or her assessment, this should also require exclusion from the panel. In this case...

The applicant was the only 15-day candidate who was interviewed. Interviews of 30-day candidates took place the day following the applicant¡¯s interview. The applicant was not successful; instead, a 30-day candidate was appointed. The applicant submitted that the Administration failed to properly assess her suitability prior to considering other candidates and thus failed to follow the selection procedures applicable to 15-day candidates under ST/AI/2006/3. The respondent argued that the candidate was given priority consideration and was found unsuitable for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the...