UNDT/2010/066

UNDT/2010/066, Safwat

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

In his request for review to the Secretary-General, the Applicant contested the decision not to appoint him to the post of Chief (D-1), Information and Communication Technology Division, at ESCWA. Subsequently, in his appeal to the JAB, the Applicant sought to contest several other decisions. The only decision that the Tribunal is competent to examine is the decision for which administrative review was sought. The evaluation of candidates to a post falls within the discretion of the Secretary-general and the Tribunal will not substitute its views to that of the Secretary-General. However, as consistently upheld by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, the discretion of the Secretary-General is not without boundaries and will be reviewed when there are allegations of abuse of discretion.The Respondent provided the Applicant with an unabridged copy of the evaluation of the selected candidate. The Applicant was thus given access to information as to the qualifications and experience of the successful candidate and could compare them to his. Notwithstanding, the Applicant did not provide any evidence in support of his allegation that he was more qualified and competent than the selected candidate. Outcome: The application was rejected.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

In June 2005, the Applicant filed an appeal before the New York JAB against the decision of the Executive Secretary of ESCWA not to promote him to the post of Chief (D-1), Information and Communication Technology Division. The Applicant contends that his work experience, education and other skills were not properly evaluated by the Executive Secretary, that he was more qualified than the selected candidate, and that his non-selection is an example of the harassment and discrimination the Executive Secretary subjected him to.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

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.

Applicants/Appellants
Safwat
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Duty Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type