UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT found that UNICEF had conducted the selection process in a manner fully consistent with its administrative legal framework, including having provided detailed reasons for considering the staff member unsuitable for the post. The UNAT held that his candidature had received full and fair consideration, and he had not shown through clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection. The UNAT noted that there was no evidence of bias or ill-motive against him.
The UNAT was of the view that UNICEF’s failure to notify the staff member of the non-selection decision had been immaterial and had not violated his rights to due consideration. The UNAT concluded that the non-selection decision was lawful and the UNDT had erred in finding that UNICEF’s failure to act transparently constituted material irregularities.
The UNAT held that the UNDT had been correct in finding that the staff member’s challenge to the separation decision was receivable.
The UNAT found that since the staff member had not requested management evaluation of other non-selection decisions, the Tribunals did not have jurisdiction to review them. The UNAT held that the UNDT had erred in finding that UNICEF had committed a material irregularity by failing to provide sufficient assistance in finding employment in the Organization. The UNAT concluded that the Administration had not failed to apply appropriate priority consideration and that the separation decision was lawful.
The UNAT granted the appeal and reversed the UNDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member contested a decision to separate him from service and a decision not to select him for a post.
In Judgment No. UNDT/2024/071, the UNDT rescinded both contested decisions and set the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission at two years’ net base salary.
The Secretary-General appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The candidate’s qualifications remain the Organization’s primary concern for the sake of good administration.
When affording priority consideration to staff members on abolished posts during a selection process, their suitability for the vacant post should first be assessed as a precondition. Priority consideration cannot be interpreted as a guarantee of selection.
Minor procedural errors cannot conclusively alter the lawfulness of a decision.
Only a final administrative decision taken at the conclusion of the process will have direct legal consequences for an applicant’s terms of appointment and constitutes an appealable administrative decision.
Compensation cannot be awarded when no illegality has been established; it cannot be granted when there is no breach of the staff member’s rights or administrative wrongdoing in need of repair.