神马午夜福利网

UNDT/2025/054

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for Job Opening # 214053 due to unlawful bias, with an alternative to pay Applicant two years of the difference in pay between his current position and the would have been new post, had he been selected in the challenged process.

Persuant toArticle 10.8 of the Dispute Tribunal Statute the Respondent’s counsel is referred to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for possible action to enforce accountability for his false statement and related misconduct in these proceedings, and to his national bar authority for such action as the authority deems appropriate under the circumstances, and further directed to show cause in writing as to why the Tribunal should not disbar him from future appearances as a legal representative before the United Nations Dispute Tribunal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant serves as a Supply Assistant (G5) at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) on a permanent appointment. He applied for a vacancy as Senior Control and Inventory Assistant (G7) position (Job Opening 214053) at UNECA. The Applicant was interviewed on 14 December 2023, as part of a Competency Based Interview (CBI) process. He was not selected and, in this application, challenges his non-selection.

Legal Principle(s)

- Fairness of recruitment and selection process.

- Alleged bias and conflict of interest in interview panel.

- Misconduct by Respondent’s legal counsel.

- Compensation in lieu of rescission.

- Referral for accountability.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

- Respondent failed to prove fair and impartial selection.

- Two panel members had prior conflicts with Applicant.

- Interview irregularities and procedural neglect.

- Misconduct by legal counsel including false statements and redactions.

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.