��ż���

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the issue of whether the staff member’s application was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer was irrelevant in determining whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. On the basis that UNDT failed to enquire as to what options were available to the staff member on Inspira at the time of application, UNAT held that UNDT’s findings that Inspira did not reflect the variety of the educational system of all the Member States equally and that the staff member’s candidature had not been afforded full and fair...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the erroneous requirement for a perfect command of English vitiated the entire recruitment process, noting that it was a typographic error and corrective measures were taken by conducting a manual review of the personal history profile of each candidate. UNAT held that UNDT erred in its finding that the selection process was unlawful and lacked transparency. UNAT held that the need for the factual determination of all of the evidence related to the roster, placement, and removal of candidates required that the instant case be remanded to the UNDT. UNAT...

UNAT held that the Organisation correctly excluded the Appellant from the recruitment process for not meeting the minimum education requirement, as he had not entered his educational credential accurately. UNAT noted that the Appellant had had access to the Inspira Applicant’s Manual and World Higher Education Database, which was embedded into Inspira. UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that UNDT failed to implement the UNAT judgment to carry out additional fact-finding on the issue of whether Inspira reflected the variety of the educational systems of all Member States equally in 2016...

UNAT 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. UNAT 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. UNAT held that the Appellant’s removal from the roster adversely impacted his potential ability for mobility and for obtaining additional incentives...

UNAT noted that, at the time of applying for the position, information was available to the Appellant in the form of the Inspira Applicant’s Manual, including the World Higher Education Database list, which meant that he had the information about how to reflect his degree correctly in his electronic application and that an inaccurate application would render him ineligible for the position. UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant’s challenge of the decision not to consider or select him for the position. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

Starting with the presumption that official acts are regularly performed, UNAT agreed that the Administration acted in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Rules when it invited three roster candidates for an informal interview and made a final selection from the roster. Given the presumption of regularity was satisfied, the burden of proof shifted on the staff member who must demonstrate that he was not given fair and adequate consideration. This, the staff member failed to do. UNAT also agreed with the UNDT that the staff member can only challenge a specific administrative decision, and...

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the present case does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the identification of candidates was available to the assessors. UNAT held that Mr Krioutchkov has failed to rebut the UNDT finding regarding the legality of the CRB process. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law, and its judgment is consistent with the UNAT jurisprudence. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal prescribe the form of the parties’ submissions filed in accordance with an order of the Tribunal. In the absence of such provisions, the matter falls under article 36 of the Rules of Procedures. The respondent has not specified anything in the form of the applicant’s submission that substantively breaches his obligations under the directions made in the Tribunal’s order—the use of the word “grounds” in a subheading instead of “issues” is not a significant difference and generally it is of no importance which template the applicant...

The Tribunal does not sit as an expert review body on the classification of posts. The Tribunal has the power and a duty to consider whether the Committee acted unfairly or in anyway improperly or whether there was any failure, omission or deliberate failure by the ASG to give effect to the substance of the report and recommendations of the Committee. If there is no evidence of this, the Tribunal will not overturn a decision of the Committee. Where the applicant raises general complaints of unfairness and denial of due process, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide sufficient detail...

Outcome: Application dismissed, but the applicant awarded USD500 in nominal compensation for not being informed in time.