UNDT/2020/145

UNDT/2020/145, Danylenko

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

With regard to GJO No. 425940, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been notified on 19 February 2014 that his application had been unsuccessful. The Applicant did not request management evaluation of that decision until over four years later. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim relating to GJO No. 425940 was not receivable ratione materiae and it was dismissed. For GJO No. 76109, the Tribunal held that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that the Administration did not give his candidacy fair and adequate consideration. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested UNMIL’s decision not to clear him for the position of FS-6 during the two job rostering exercises in Generic Job Opening (GJO) No. 425940 in 2013/2014 and GJO No. 76109 in 2017/2018.

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c ), a request for a management evaluation shall not be receivable by the Secretary-General unless it is sent within 60 calendar days from the date on which the staff member received the notification of the administrative decision to be contested. Further, as per the settled jurisprudence, the Dispute Tribunal may only review decisions that have been subject of a proper and timely request for management evaluation. According to the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, in staff selection matters, the starting point is the presumption that official functions have been regularly performed. This presumption is satisfied where management minimally shows that the staff member’s candidature was given fair and adequate consideration. Once management satisfies this initial requirement, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show through clear and convincing evidence that he was not given fair and adequate consideration.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

The claim relating Generic Job Opening No. 425940 was 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.

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