UNDT/2011/190, Osmanli

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. The contested decision had not yet been implemented, as the head of the department had simply communicated by phone his selection to the successful candidate and the latter had merely sent an email expressing his “great interest” in the job. The Tribunal found that this did not amount to an official offer by the Administration followed by an unconditional acceptance by the candidate. The Tribunal considered that the impending appointment of the successful candidate conferred urgency to the matter; that the contested decision, if implemented, could cause harm to the Applicant’s professional reputation and legitimate career prospects, which, in the circumstances of the case, may amount to irreparable damage; and that at least some of the Applicant’s allegations, which have not been rebutted by the Respondent, might raise serious and reasonable doubts about the lawfulness of the selection decision. Receivability of suspension of action application in appointment/promotion cases: Article 10.2 of the Statute and its restrictions, which only apply to requests for interim measures during the proceedings before the Tribunal, not at the management evaluation stage, is not applicable in the present case since the Applicant sought suspension of action pending management evaluation pursuant to art. 2.2 of the Statute. Implementation of a decision: Suspension of action is only possible regarding decisions which have not yet been implemented. For a selection decision to be implemented, an employment offer from the Organization and its unconditional acceptance by the selected candidate are, at least, required.Outcome: Judgment in favour of applicant in full

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant filed an application for suspension of action pending management evaluation of the selection decision for a post.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Osmanli

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry Location