51�Թ�

For an application to be receivable pursuant to arts. 2 and 3 of the Tribunal’s Statute, an Applicant has to contest an administrative decision alleging non-compliance with his or her contract of employment or terms of appointment.; At the time the Applicant applied for the contested post as well as at the time of the contested decision (non-selection), he was no longer a staff member. While he is a former staff member, the decision not to select him for the advertised post advertised was not linked to his (previous) contract of employment or terms of appointment with the United Nations...

A roster is a temporary pool of candidates who were not selected for an advertised position but recommended for it immediately after a competitive recruitment exercise. They are therefore considered pre-approved candidates available for further selections. The provision of rosters is an exception to the general principle that only successful candidates of a competitive recruitment process can be recruited for advertised positions. The institution of rosters is in general allowed in the interest of the Organization, which can so cover staffing needs without a new competitive process being...

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...

The Tribunal considered that despite the Applicant’s characterization of the contested decision as a “written reprimand” in his request for management evaluation and in his application, there was never a reprimand issued by an authorized official and, thus, there was no administrative decision to contest. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal also noted that since the record related to the investigation of a complaint made against the Applicant was deleted from the Misconduct Tracking System (“MTS”), the Applicant’s claim in this...

The Tribunal found that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the Administrative Instruction on Staff Selection and the Recruitment Strategy. In accordance with these rules, the Applicant was given priority consideration due to her status as a staff member on an abolished post and was shortlisted, tested, and interviewed for the post as an internal candidate. However, following the written tests and the interviews, the selection panel unanimously found that none of the internal candidates, including the Applicant, were suitable for the position and recommended that the vacancy...

It resulted from the records that the Applicant only requested management evaluation of the decision concerning her non-selection, while no management evaluation request was filed with respect to the decision to abolish her former post The Tribunal, therefore, found that the claim concerning the abolition of the Applicant’s former post was not receivable and proceeded to only review the non-selection decision. The Tribunal found that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the Administrative Instruction on Staff Selection and the Recruitment Strategy. In accordance with these...

It was uncontested that a) the Applicant should have filed his application by 4 September 2019 (Geneva time) and b) he only filed it on 5 September 2019. The Applicant’s Counsel argues that “technical difficulties” and an “internal oversight” prevented OSLA from timely filing the application. The Tribunal noted that the CCMS records showed that the application was filed on 5 September 2019 at 1.01 p.m. (Geneva time). Also, the screenshot of the “error message” provided by the Applicant did not have a timestamp or any other element proving that there was an effective attempt to timely file the...

The Tribunal chose to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The Tribunal recalled that under art. 8.1(c) and 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal’s Statute, a substantive application is receivable if the contested decision has been submitted for management evaluation and the application is filed within 90 calendar days of the applicant’s receipt of the response by management to his or her submission or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request...

Receivability The contested decision, i.e., the decision taken by the Director, ID, OIOS, not to rearrange the Applicant’s reporting lines is an administrative decision. In fact, reporting lines relate directly to the core of the employee-employer relationship and have an impact not only on the daily functions that the staff member performs but, also, on its evaluation and future career prospects. Hierarchy and reporting lines are an essential part of a complex normative framework for performance management, namely ST/AI/2010/5, and impact directly the staff member’s terms of employment...