025 (NY/2025)

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the application was premature, as it concerned a recruitment process that was still ongoing and for which there had been no selection decision. The decision not to invite the Applicant for an interview was an intermediate step that was not a final reviewable administrative decision. Consequently, the application was not receivable ratione materiae.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application for suspension of action contesting the alleged ��[f]ailure to provide full and fair consideration for [her] candidacy or to address the irregularities of the [Safety and Security Section] Selection Process for the Job Opening #245061��.

Legal Principle(s)

The Tribunal recalled that under the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal, only a final decision that has direct consequences for the staff member��s legal rights and obligations is receivable before the Dispute Tribunal (see Avramoski 2020-��AT-987, para. 39; Faye 2016-��AT-657, para. 30; Lee 2014-��AT-481, paras. 48-49; Ngokeng 2014-��AT-460, para. 27). A staff member may not challenge the intermediate or preparatory steps of an administrative decision (see �� 2023��AT-1313, para. 24).

In Abdellaoui 2019-��AT-928, the Appeals Tribunal held that ��[t]he decision not to short-list [a staff member] is an internal step within the selection process, it is not an administrative decision. The only appealable decision in the present case is the decision not to select [a staff member] for the position in question. Only this decision is final and bears direct legal consequences�� (see para. 17).

The Tribunal further noted that it was bound to follow the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal under the legal doctrine of stare decisis (see, for instance, Igbinedion 2014-��AT-410, paras. 23-25) and would therefore also abide by its judgment in Abdellaoui.

Outcome

Suspension of action denied

Outcome Extra Text

The Applicant, however, retained the right to contest the final decision upon completion of the selection process.

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.

Individual Party

JOSEPH-SOLOZANO

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Order