Âé¶¹´«Ã½

  • Facts (establishment of) / evidence
  • Medical Clearances and Fitness to Work (UNHCR/AI/2022/03)
  • MONUSCO AI No. 2013/15
  • ST/A1/371/Amend.1
  • ST/AI /2018/2
  • ST/AI/149/Rev.4
  • ST/AI/155/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/189/Add.6/Rev.4
  • ST/AI/189/Add.6/Rev.5
  • ST/AI/1994/4
  • ST/AI/1997/4
  • ST/AI/1997/6
  • ST/AI/1997/7
  • ST/AI/1998/1
  • ST/AI/1998/4
  • ST/AI/1998/7
  • ST/AI/1998/7/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/1998/9
  • ST/AI/1999/111
  • ST/AI/1999/12
  • ST/AI/1999/13
  • ST/AI/1999/16
  • ST/AI/1999/17
  • ³§°Õ/´¡±õ/1999/17​
  • ST/AI/1999/3
  • ST/AI/1999/6
  • ST/AI/1999/7
  • ST/AI/1999/8
  • ST/AI/1999/9
  • ST/AI/2000/1
  • ST/AI/2000/10
  • ST/AI/2000/11
  • ST/AI/2000/12
  • ST/AI/2000/13
  • ST/AI/2000/16
  • ST/AI/2000/19
  • ST/AI/2000/20
  • ST/AI/2000/4
  • ST/AI/2000/5
  • ST/AI/2000/6
  • ST/AI/2000/8
  • ST/AI/2000/8/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2000/9
  • ST/AI/2001/2
  • ST/AI/2001/7/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2001/8
  • ST/AI/2002/1
  • ST/AI/2002/3
  • ST/AI/2002/4
  • ST/AI/2003/1
  • ST/AI/2003/3
  • ST/AI/2003/4
  • ST/AI/2003/7
  • ST/AI/2003/8
  • ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2004/1
  • ST/AI/2004/3
  • ST/AI/2005/12
  • ST/AI/2005/2
  • ST/AI/2005/2/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2005/3
  • ST/AI/2005/3/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/2005/3/Section 3.2
  • ST/AI/2005/5
  • ST/AI/2006
  • ST/AI/2006/3
  • ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2006/4
  • ST/AI/2006/5
  • ST/AI/2006/5/Section 11
  • ST/AI/2007/1
  • ST/AI/2007/3
  • ST/AI/2008/3
  • ST/AI/2008/5
  • ST/AI/2009/1
  • ST/AI/2009/10
  • ST/AI/2010/1
  • ST/AI/2010/12
  • ST/AI/2010/3
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Rev. 2
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Rev. 3
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 11.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 2.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 6.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 6.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 7.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 9.3
  • ST/AI/2010/4
  • ST/AI/2010/4/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Corr.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 15.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 15.7
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 4
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 7
  • ST/AI/2010/6
  • ST/AI/2010/7
  • ST/AI/2011/3
  • ST/AI/2011/4
  • ST/AI/2011/5
  • ST/AI/2011/6
  • ST/AI/2011/7
  • ST/AI/2012/1
  • ST/AI/2012/2
  • ST/AI/2012/2/Rev. 1
  • ST/AI/2012/2/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2012/3
  • ST/AI/2012/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2013/1
  • ST/AI/2013/1/Corr. 1
  • ST/AI/2013/3
  • ST/AI/2013/4
  • ST/AI/2015/2
  • ST/AI/2016/1
  • ST/AI/2016/2
  • ST/AI/2016/6
  • ST/AI/2016/8
  • ST/AI/2017/1
  • ST/AI/2017/2
  • ST/AI/2018/1
  • ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2018/10
  • ST/AI/2018/10
  • ST/AI/2018/10/Corr.1
  • ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1: sec. 6.1 and sec. 6.2
  • ST/AI/2018/5
  • ST/AI/2018/6
  • ST/AI/2018/7
  • ST/AI/2019/1
  • ST/AI/2019/1/Section 4.3
  • ST/AI/2019/3/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2020/10
  • ST/AI/2020/100
  • ST/AI/2020/101
  • ST/AI/2020/102
  • ST/AI/2020/3
  • ST/AI/2020/5
  • ST/AI/2020/50
  • ST/AI/2021/4
  • ST/AI/2023/2
  • ST/AI/2023/3 on Mobility
  • ST/AI/222
  • ST/AI/234
  • ST/AI/234/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/234/Rev.1/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/240/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/246
  • ST/AI/273
  • ST/AI/292
  • ST/AI/293
  • ST/AI/294
  • ST/AI/299
  • ST/AI/308/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/309/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/326
  • ST/AI/343
  • ST/AI/367
  • ST/AI/371
  • ST/AI/371/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/372
  • ST/AI/379
  • ST/AI/394
  • ST/AI/397
  • ST/AI/400
  • ST/AI/401
  • ST/AI/404
  • ST/AI/408
  • ST/AI/411
  • ST/Al/2010/5
  • UNHCR/AI/2016/3
  • UNHCR/AI/2019/16/Corrigendum ((Administrative Instruction on the Management of Temporary Appointments)
  • UNHCR/AI/2019/7/Rev.1
  • UNMISS AI No. 005/2011
  • UNOPS Administrative Instruction Concerning Contract Renewals of Staff Members 2010 AI/HPRG/2010/02
  • Showing 1 - 10 of 190

    The Tribunal initially ordered that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal in Villamoran 2011-UNAT-160, the contested should not be implemented during pendency of the present proceedings and before it had adjudicated all matters of the present case.

    As the Applicant filed the application to the Dispute Tribunal after the selection had already been implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.

    Having considered all the submissions and the evidence on record, the Tribunal considered that the main issue for determination was whether the hiring manager conducted a fair and unbiased assessment of the Applicant’s candidacy, giving it full and fair consideration.

    The spreadsheet submitted by the Respondent in response to Order No. 57 (GVA/2024) sheds a light into the matter. This contemporaneous document showcases the hiring manager’s thorough assessment of the Applicant’s professional experience.

    The Applicant’s submissions concerning his title, long satisfactory service, OiC experience...

    The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of P-4 Reviser (Russian) was lawful in that he was given full and fair consideration for the position.

    The Tribunal found that the applicable procedures were properly followed, and that the Applicant’s allegations of procedural irregularities were unsubstantiated.

    With respect to full and fair consideration, the Tribunal noted that after reviewing the applications based on the established evaluation criteria, four candidates were deemed not to be suitable and five candidates...

    The UNAT found that the decision not to select the staff member for TJO 161651 was lawful. It held that since the staff member did not challenge the cancellation of TJO 14924, under which the Administration initially advertised the position of Administrative Officer, that cancellation decision was not part of the contested decision under review. In any event, the UNAT determined that the Administration had the discretion to cancel TJO 149241 and re-advertise the position under TJO 161651 after the selected candidate withdrew her candidature. It was under no obligation to invite the second...

    The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT did not err in holding that the Hiring Manager had correctly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her Personal History Profile (PHP) were equivalent to a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Certification. One of the educational requirements for the position was the LSS certification or an “equivalent certificationâ€. In the present case, the UNDT correctly concluded that the Hiring Manager had properly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her PHP were equivalent to an LSS certification, as required for...

    The UNAT held that a procedural flaw occurred during the recruitment process due to the inappropriate screening of educational requirements. Specifically, the UNAT highlighted that the Hiring Manager failed to verify if the candidates’ degrees were in fields related to Supply Chain Management, business administration/management, instead considering all of them eligible in respect of educational requirements. Nevertheless, highlighting that the former staff member was, unlike 16 other candidates, neither recommended for the position, nor rostered for future similar vacancies, the UNAT held...

    Mr. Ronved appealed.

    The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

    The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable with respect to the refusal of a temporary promotion to the P-4 level.  The contested decision before the UNDT was the decision to extend the SPA, which the Appellant timely challenged before the MEU and the UNDT.  The extension of the SPA and the denial to grant a promotion were two sides of the same decision, with the same time limits for management evaluation.  Therefore, the request for management evaluation of both decisions was...

    The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in holding that the Administration misinterpreted one of the requirements for the position advertised in JO 127555, namely “experience in leading large teamsâ€, as requiring experience of direct supervision of 10 people or more. The UNAT further found that the vacancy announcement allowed for a such contextual interpretation as the literal meaning of “lead†is very general and does not, by itself, allow for an exact comprehension of the intended meaning. Therefore, the UNAT held that it was reasonable for the Administration to interpret the requirement of...

    The Tribunal rejected the application finding that the Secretary-General made the final selection decision, lawfully taking into account the unchallenged considerations of geographical diversity and gender. In regard to the evaluation of the shortlisted candidates, the Applicant cannot allege to have been prejudiced by the choice of the other shortlisted or recommended candidates. The Applicant was among the recommended candidates. In any event, the Applicant does not demonstrate that the selected female candidate had less credentials than the other female candidates. The Applicant has not...