ÍæÅ¼½ã½ã

UNDT/2013/144

UNDT/2013/144, Asariotis

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that since the Applicant failed to request the Administration to open a new TVA, and as such to provoke an administrative decision of refusal, the application was irreceivable in this respect. The Tribunal further found that the decision to select another candidate was procedurally flawed since the Applicant, despite her request, was not provided with the names of the members of the Interview Panel. In view of the case history, there is no doubt that the Applicant would have requested a change of Panel members and a reasonable Administrator would have conceded to her request. Therefore, the procedural irregularity was substantial and had an impact on the final selection decision which had to be cancelled. The Applicant had a chance out of 7 to be promoted and was awarded compensation for material (under art. 10.5 of the Statute) and moral damages.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant appealed the decision to appoint another candidate than her to a Director post (D-1), UNCTAD, and the failure to open a new TVA for the contested post pending the finalization of the selection procedure.

Legal Principle(s)

Administrative decision: In case the Administration lets an illegal situation continue, a staff member has to request the Administration to put an end to the illegal situation and as such provoke an appealable implicit or explicit administrative decision of refusal. An implicit administrative decision cannot be notified in writing. Non-promotion: The purpose of the rule that the Administration shall inform candidates before the interview of the composition of the assessment Panel is to allow them to raise potential conflicts of interest, hence to give the Administration the possibility to change Panel members. The failure to provide a candidate with the names of the members of the assessment Panel constitutes a procedural irregularity which may, in certain cases, be substantial, and lead to the cancelling of the selection decision. The Administration is bound to follow its own rules.

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part
Outcome Extra Text

Only specific performance (including rescission with in lieu compensation)

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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.

Applicants/Appellants
Asariotis
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Duty Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Applicable Law