±¬ÁÏÍø

Res judicata: The Tribunal held that a request made to or a decision of MEU does not operate as an express or disguised form of res judicata. The principle of res judicata applies as a rule to judicial decisions. Thus, the Tribunal is not bound by the finding of MEU except for the limitation put on its judicial powers by having a suspension of action, which is a judicial order, lapse following a finding of MEU, which is strictly an administrative decision. Priority consideration: The Tribunal concluded that since the Applicant was found unsuitable for the post, the failure to consider his...

Did the involvement of a retiree from the Organization in the pre-screening and short-listing process, and the competency-based interview, affect the propriety of the selection exercise?The Tribunal found that, while retirees should generally not be hired by the Organization if other options are available, the involvement of a retiree in the selection process did not in any way prejudice the candidacy of the Applicant. The Applicant was found to have met all the requirements for the post, was short-listed and was invited to participate in a competency-based interview. Further, the Applicant...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s request was not properly considered in that irrelevant factors were taken into consideration whereas relevant factors were not. In particular, no proper consideration was given to the individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception. Further, the reasoning supporting the decision was flawed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that no reasonable explanation was provided as to why the granting of this exception would have been prejudicial to other staff. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded the Applicant the sum of USD3,000 as compensation for loss of chance of...

rocedurally flawed because the ASG/OCSS failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the HCC Note and to comment on any perceived concerns regarding his performance. It was also unclear from the written decisions what specific conclusions the ASG/OCSS had reached about the Applicant¡¯s responsibility for the issues raised in the HCC Note. In addition, the Tribunal was not convinced that the contested decisions would have been justified notwithstanding the breaches of due process and procedure.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, although the JO was canceled and re-issued, there were still outstanding relief claims for adjudication, therefore, the application was not moot. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s request for removal of the Representative of the Secretary-General (¡°RSG¡±) for the Investments of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF from the recruitment process, finding that this request pertained to the re-issued job opening. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s request to refer the case for accountability and his claims for legal costs and moral damages. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the Approving Authority in this case acted contrary to ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF's staff selection legislation and policy. The undue influence exerted by the Approving Authority on the Selection Panel which let to a reversal of its earlier decision concerning the Applicant's suitability is evidence in the stark contrast of the Selection Panel's position when it stood its ground early in the selection process following a query by the Local Central Review Body as to why it found the Applicant suitable. The Approving Authority in this case by directly approaching the Selection Panel to...

Receivability - At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor does the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. He therefore has no locus standi to challenge a decision of the Respondent before this Tribunal..

SummaryThe Tribunal concluded that the selection process was procedurally flawed for the following reasons: a. the job opening did not identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of the technical skills during the selection process;b. the selection panel did not include an expert on Russian language and a non-voting member representing the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, which the Tribunal considered was necessary in accordance with ST/AI/1998/7;c. the selection panel did not assess the short-listed candidates through an assessment...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found no impropriety in connection with the successful candidate¡¯s lateral moves. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that whether or not the successful candidate had two lateral moves was not determinative in this case as the Applicant was not recommended for the post for reasons unconnected to the successful candidate¡¯s eligibility. The application was dismissed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant chose not to submit her candidacy for this P-5 vacancy. Accordingly, the outcome of the selection process had no direct legal effect on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant lacked standing to contest the selection process. The application was therefore dismissed.