UNDT/2014/056

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNDT found that the Applicant did not have legal standing in this case as he had not applied for the advertised job opening.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant, a P-5 level Chief, Transport Facilitation and Logistics Section, Transport Division, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (“ESCAP”), filed an application contesting the “unlawful job opening for [the D-1] position of Chief, Transport Division, ESCAP”.

Legal Principle(s)

Legal standing, locus standi in cases of non-selection: For the purposes of art. 2.1(a) of the Statute, it is not sufficient for an applicant to merely establish that there was an administrative decision that she or he disagrees with. To have standing before the Tribunal, a staff member must show that a contested administrative decision affects her or his legal rights. A party who litigates must show that he has sufficient interest in the matter, the basic ingredient of which is that a party must show that he has a right or interest at stake. A litigant will have legal standing if the right on which he bases his claim is one that this individual personally enjoys, or if he has a sufficient interest in the person or persons whose rights he seeks to protect. A staff member does not have a right to an automatic selection or promotion to a higher-level post based on prior performance or years of service, only a right to be fully and fairly considered. A staff member’s right to be fully and fairly considered during a selection process will generally derive from his submission to that process by applying for the job. In this particular case, the Applicant has not declared his interest as he chose not to apply for the position. Absent a job application, and therefore absent his candidature, the Applicant cannot be considered at all, nor can he put forward allegations of unfairness on his behalf, and certainly not on behalf of other staff members.

Outcome

Dismissed as not receivable

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.

Li