2020-��AT-1067

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that there was nothing in the applicable law in force at the time of the events which formed a basis for the Administration��s practice of removing the candidates�� names from the language roster once they had been recruited or placed against a position. ��AT held that the removal of a candidate from the roster prevented the Administration from evaluating and reassigning or selecting a candidate for a similar post in another duty station. ��AT held that the Appellant��s removal from the roster adversely impacted his potential ability for mobility and for obtaining additional incentives related to such mobility. Noting that the job opening did not make it clear that only roster candidates were eligible, ��AT held that the practice did not meet the principles of transparency and access to information, which allow for openness, accountability, and good governance, the values of the Organisation. ��AT held that the practice at the time, even though now partially legalized by ST/AI/2020/3, was not supported by the applicable legal framework at the time of the events and was, therefore, unlawful. ��AT granted the appeal, vacated the ��DT judgment, rescinded the decision to remove the Appellant from the selection process for the position, and set compensation in lieu of rescission.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant challenged the decision not to evaluate him for a position. On remand, ��DT found that the Applicant had been lawfully screened out of the selection process, having been removed from the roster once assigned to a post. ��DT dismissed his application.

Legal Principle(s)

An administrative practice that was not supported by the applicable legal framework at the time of the events is unlawful.

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT 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

Krioutchkov

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement