The Applicant does not show, or even allege, any exceptional circumstances which may have precluded her from timely accessing the invitation email to the written test. Accordingly, the Applicant has not shown that the Administration denied her full and fair consideration. The decision that the Applicant was ineligible signified the end of the process as far as she was concerned. This decision cannot be described as merely preparatory and was therefore reviewable.
The Applicant was not a staff member at the time of the contested decision, and her former employment was with a different entity than that concerned by the administrative decision under review in this case. No nexus existed between the Applicant’s former employment with the Organization and the administrative decision under review, and the Applicant has therefore no standing to challenge this decision. The cancellation of a selection process is not a challengeable administrative decision. In this case, the canceled job opening was eventually re-advertised and the Applicant eventually selected...
In 蘑菇视频DT/NY/2019/012, the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested administrative decision within 60 days and the application in this respect is therefore not receivable. In 蘑菇视频DT/NY/2018/045, the Applicant only learned the real reasons underlying the decision not to select him for the position at the management evaluation stage. Therefore, he was allowed to introduce arguments concerning these reasons in his application before the Dispute Tribunal even if he had not raised them at the management evaluation stage. The Administration decided to select two female...
The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety. It held that the impugned decision was lawful because there was nothing on the record to suggest that the Respondent had acted outside the scope of lawful discretion in designing and conducting the selection process. In addition, the Applicant had not demonstrated that in his evaluation relevant material had not been taken into consideration.
The Tribunal’s role is not to substitute its decision for that of the Administration when it comes to the evaluation of job candidates. All that is required from the Administration is that it minimally shows that the Applicant’s candidature was given a full and fair consideration. The applicable legal framework allowed the consideration of gender and geographical diversity in the recruitment process.
The Tribunal found that the provided reason for not renewing the Applicant’s appointment was not properly based on facts and, consequently, that the contested decision was unlawful. To determine remedies, through a subsequent judgment, the Tribunal instructed the parties to file final submissions on the matter taking into account its findings in the instant Judgment.
Non-renewal of the Applicant’s FTA Given the financial situation, the Tribunal finds that the challenged decision is not ultra vires, being for the administration to evaluate the opportunity to renew temporary contracts according to the financial situation of that time. The lawfulness of the non-renewal decision must be evaluated with reference to the situation of the moment in which the decision was taken. However, in presence of a contract whose effects remain for a longer period, and which do not require non-renewal notices, the reason constituting the ground of the administrative decision...
The Tribunal reviewed the documents submitted by the parties as well as the Respondent’s clarifications on the anonymity of the test and found that the Applicant’s allegation that the candidates’ responses were not anonymized was not supported by the evidence. The Applicant argued that the assessment panel was not properly constituted in accordance with sec. 1(c) of ST/AI/2010/3 as only two individuals, none of whom are female, graded the test results. The Tribunal acknowledged that the three-member composition of the assessment panel provided in ST/AI/2010/3 is not mandatory, as the...
A mere assertion that the Applicant did not receive the notification on 16 November 2016 did not satisfy the requirement to show compliance with statutory deadlines. The reasons given by the Applicant to extend the filing of his application contained a misrepresentation. He suppressed material facts concerning proof of when he received the Management Evaluation Unit notification and that he in fact was not engaged in any formal dispute settlement process with 蘑菇视频FIL involving the United Nations Office of Mediation Services as he alleged. The Applicant was under an obligation to make a full and...
The Respondent did not select the Applicant for GJO 71792 because he failed a competency-based interview. Passing a competency-based interview is a lawful requirement envisioned by art. 101.3 of the United Nations Charter and set by the Staff Regulations and Rules that form an integral part of the Applicant’s terms of employment. The Respondent complied with all the relevant statutory requirements in the selection process leading to the contested decision. It was clear from the jurisprudence that the Applicant’s argument that the Administration should have considered his previous scores in...
