±¬ÁÏÍø

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. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the...

Out of the various decisions that the applicant challenged, only those raised in the request for administrative request are receivable. Mere preparatory decisions may not be contested before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 1, of its statute. Indeed, those decisions are not of such nature as to affect the staff member¡¯s rights per se; they can be called into question in contesting the main/final decision, but not by themselves. Furthermore, since the applicant had already been promoted by the time he filed the present case, he had no legitimate interest to take legal action.

The decision by the Chief of the Human Resources Services Section (HRSS) to discontinue the selection process without a proper determination that the recruitment procedures had not been followed precisely was an abuse of the Administration¡¯s discretionary authority. While the Applicant had only been ¡°recommended¡± for the post by the ASP and had not been ¡°selected¡±, the serious procedural irregularity that resulted from the Chief of HRSS¡¯ actions prevented his candidacy from proceeding to the central review body and therefore amounted to a violation of his rights. The decision was an abuse of...

Since the applicant did not comply with the time limits prescribed in former staff rule 111.2 (a), the Tribunal examined whether there were any exceptional circumstances within the meaning of former staff rule 111.2 (f) which prevented her from submitting a request for review in time.The Tribunal applied the definition of exceptional circumstances adopted by the former ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and upheld by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in a number of judgments, i.e. circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. Outcome: The application was rejected as time-barred.

The applicant joined the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) of the United Nations in September 2005 on a two-year contract as a P-4 level legal officer. Between July 2006 and January 2007 the applicant was admitted to several hospitals to receive alcohol-related treatment and, in January 2007, she was medically evacuated to her home country and subsequently placed on special leave without pay. On 1 August 2007, the applicant was informed that her contract would not be extended beyond its expiration date of 2 September 2007. The applicant filed an appeal contesting the...

The Head of Office acted within his authority in effectively overriding the recommendation of the APC, as provided for by Annex 4G, para. 28(a)(iii). The relationship between the SAP and the APC is sequential, not hierarchical; the judgment of one is not superior to the judgment of the other. The Head of Office is not bound to accept the recommendation of one over the other. The Head of Office is bound to exercise his independent judgment after giving careful consideration to the recommendations made to him and explaining why he preferred one candidate to another. The Head of Office did not...

ST/AI/292, dated 15 July 1982, provides measures in relation to the filing of adverse materials in personnel records, which measures were supposed to be interim in nature. In the context of the current framework of norms, ST/AI/292 alone does not provide adequate ¡°rebuttal¡± procedures for short-term staff. The creation of two classes of short-term staff which potentially occurs via ST/AI/2002/3, based on management discretion is not fair; where the provisions of ST/AI/2002/3 are applied to some short-term staff and not others, this violates the doctrine of equal treatment in like circumstances...

Articles 2(1) and 2(1) (a) of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT define a contract of employment to include ¡°all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of the alleged non-compliance. There is nothing before the Tribunal to evidence that the Applicant signed any LOA in relation to the offer made by the organization to employ him on the terms defined in the reassignment memorandum dated 10 June 2008. The reassignment memorandum contained terms that were not certain, that were qualified and cannot therefore besaid to have been a final and binding...

Outcome: For distress: USD5,000. For loss of chance: (a) 10 percent of the difference between the salary the applicant actually carries and that she would have received in the D-2 position on a continuous basis, (b) 10 percent of any additional allowances and benefits she would have received at the D-2 level including adjustment of her pension contributions and consequent retirement benefits.