51�Թ�

The Organization cannot be held responsible for incorrect information entered by the Applicant that resulted in his screening out of the recruitment process. The lawfulness of the screening out of the Applicant’s candidature does not hinge on whether the Administration knew or could/should have known that the Applicant’s degree was of a higher level than the one indicated in his PHP. The issue of whether the Applicant’s candidature was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer is irrelevant in determining whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. Hence, implicitly...

The Tribunal noted that the educational requirement under JO 50523 was a “recognized first-level degree from a university or institution of equivalent status” and to “have passed the Russian United Nations Competitive Examination for Translators/Précis-writers”. It resulted from the file, and it was uncontested by the parties, that the Applicant holds a Diploma in Economics from the Moskovskij Gosudarstvennyj Institut Mezdunarodnyh Otnosenij (the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, also known as “MGIMO”) and that his attendance years were from 1980 to 1986. The evidence on file...

UNDT held that the principal legal issue arising for consideration in the case was whether the Applicant’s qualifications met the requirement of a recognized first level university degree as required by the job opening she was selected for. The Tribunal held that the Applicant did not meet the minimum educational requirements for positions at the P-2 level and was not eligible to be considered for a one-time amnesty for staff members under section 6 of ST/AI/2018/5. The Tribunal held that the Applicant did not demonstrate unfairness, unjustness, lack of transparency or inappropriate motive in...