Âé¶¹´«Ã½

UNDT/2011/113

UNDT/2011/113, Bouchardy

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Selection process: According to the APPB Procedural Guidelines, the APPB may recommend to the High Commissioner an eligible candidate who has not necessarily been proposed by the manager and the High Commissioner, in the exercise of his discretionary power, is not obliged to endorse the APPB recommendation and may appoint a staff member to a post provided s/he is eligible and her/his candidacy has been examined by the APPB. In the case at hand, the Applicant was not recommended by the Representative and this is the main reason for his non-appointment. The Tribunal has only a limited role in the assessment of a staff member’s candidacy. The Tribunal may not substitute its judgment for that of the Administration in this regard.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant, a UNHCR staff member in between assignments at the P-4 level, applied for a P-4 post in Ukraine. He was one of the eligible candidates released but was not recommended by the UNHCR Representative, who recommended three candidates at the P-3 level. The APPB refused to recommend either of these candidates and requested the Division of Human Resources Management (DHRM) to provide the manager with names of suitable SIBA candidates at the P-4 level. DHRM released the second tier list of candidates and identified two suitable candidates at the P-4 level, one of whom was the Applicant. The Representative reviewed all candidates and made two recommendations in order of priority. The Applicant was not among the recommended candidates. At its following session, the APPB recommended one of the proposed candidates, who was later appointed by the High Commissioner. The Applicant contests the decision not to appoint him to the above-mentioned post.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Dismissed on merits

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
Bouchardy
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Duty Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type