UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.
The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly applied the presumption of regularity and the clear and convincing evidence standard in non?selection cases, and that the Administration had minimally established that the staff member’s candidacy was fully and fairly considered through a procedurally regular selection process. It held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the staff member failed to rebut that presumption, noting that assertions and disagreement with the assessment did not amount to probative evidence of bias, discrimination, or procedural irregularity.
The UNAT further held that the UNDT did not err in rejecting the allegations of nationality?based discrimination, and confirmed that claims concerning the cancellation of a separate job opening and the lateral reassignment of another staff member were not receivable, as they were distinct administrative decisions not submitted for management evaluation and did not produce direct legal consequences for the staff member.
Accordingly, the UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member of theSmall Island Developing States Unit of the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (OHRLLS) contested the decision of the Administration not to select him for a Temporary Job Opening for the P?3 level position of Programme Management Officer. The staff member alleged that the non?selection was tainted by bias and nationality based discrimination, and that irregularities in the recruitment process undermined fairness and transparency.
In its Judgment No. UNDT/2025/036, the UNDT dismissed the application on the merits, finding that the staff member had received full and fair consideration, that the selection process was procedurally regular, and that no bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations had been established by clear and convincing evidence. The UNDT further found certain claims not receivable due to the staff member’s failure to request management evaluation of separate administrative decisions.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
An appeal is not an opportunity for the parties to reargue their case. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed in the lower court. Rather, he or she must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by this Tribunal.
A staff member seeking selection or promotion has a right to be fully and fairly considered through a competitive selection process untainted by improper motives, such as bias or discrimination. A candidate, however, has no right to selection or promotion. Therefore, once the administration has minimally established the threshold, a candidate challenging a non-selection decision must prove through clear and convincing evidence that the interview and selection procedures were violated, the members of the panel exhibited bias, irrelevant material was considered or relevant material ignored, or on potentially other grounds depending on the facts of the case.