UNDT/2012/024, Charles

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal rejects the Applicant’s submission that the expert panel did not; have the authority to compile a list of recommended candidates to the Director of the department based on its assessment of all the candidates participating in the selection process.; There is no requirement in any of the regulations, rules or policies of the; Organization for all expert panel members to undergo training in competency-based interviewing.; The Tribunal concludes that the fact that one out of three members of the expert; panel who interviewed that Applicant had not received competency-based training in interviewing does not in and of itself results in a breach of the Applicant’s rights. There is no relevant legal instrument which accords such a right.; The Applicant has not shown through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of promotion.; There is no evidence at all before the Tribunal that the expert panel committed; any procedural or other errors that had any impact on the selection process. On the contrary, as documented, the selection process in all respects followed the; comprehensive system prescribed by ST/AI/2010/3.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant’s non-selection for a post.

Legal Principle(s)

The primary burden is on the Applicant provided that the Respondent can minimally show that the Applicant was given full and fair consideration. The Appeals Tribunal will not approve the award of compensation when absolutely no harm has been suffered and any detected procedural irregularity is considered inconsequential.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

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

Charles

Entity

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NY/2011/061

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry

New York

Date of Judgement