UNDT/2011/160, Douaji
The Tribunal found that the Administration had fulfilled its obligation, stressing that the results in the tests indicated that the Applicant was less qualified for the posts than the other candidates. Receivability ratione materiae: Although the contested decision was made after the Applicant had ceased to be a staff member, it is directly linked to her separation and corresponds to the criteria set in the relevant jurisprudence of an “administrative decision” subject to appeal. Priority consideration: A promise of priority consideration must be understood as giving priority only over other candidates having equal qualifications. In other words, when other candidates exist whose qualifications are superior, the Administration is by no means bound to grant the post to the candidate enjoying priority consideration.
Separated upon the abolition of her post in 1992, the Applicant filed an appeal against the termination of her appointment. While considering that she was not legally entitled to any remedy, in April 1993, the Secretary-General decided that she be placed on the roster and given priority for upcoming suitable vacancies in UNDOF. Over the years she contested many times the non-implementation of this decision before the JAB and the former UNAT.