51ÁÔÆæ

30 v. 60-day mark candidates: It is clear from the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3¡ªin particular sections 4.5, 7.1 and 9.2, as well as paragraph 3 of annex I and paragraph 4 of annex III¡ªthat applications of candidates eligible to be considered at the 30-day mark must be considered before those of candidates eligible to be considered at the 60-day mark. 60-day mark candidates may only be considered if there are no qualified 30-day mark candidates. Compensation: In setting the appropriate amount of compensation, the Tribunal must assess the chance that the Applicant would have been promoted had the...

Receivability of claim for relief: In his application before the former UN Administrative Tribunal, the Applicant merely requested compensation for the prejudice suffered. His request that the contested decision be rescinded, which was submitted two years later, must be rejected as time-barred since it was submitted long after the time limit for appeal had expired. 30 v. 60-day mark candidates: Section 6.2 of ST/AI/2002/4 prescribes that applications from 30-day mark candidates received after the 30-day mark shall be considered at the 60-day mark. Furthermore, it is clear from the provisions...

The Applicant¡¯s criticism, that staff members with a vested interest in the process because they were unsuccessful in the promotion exercise procured the Staff Union resolution, is not a criticism that should be directed towards the Respondent¡¯s managers, but is rather a matter for the Staff Union. Staff member¡¯s right to a decision in a timely manner: The Respondent¡¯s approach to resolving this matter indicated a lack of urgency and sensitivity towards the legitimate expectations and feelings of the Applicant. Outcome: The UNDT awarded compensation of USD10,000 for emotional distress and...

The application was withdrawn by the applicant.

Applicant¡¯s request for a swap of posts and for priority consideration: The Tribunal¡¯s Statute does not authorize it to issue such orders to the Administration. Applicant¡¯s request for an internal review of UNDSS: The Tribunal¡¯s mandate is to enforce the individual rights of applicants; it does not behove the Tribunal to oblige the Administration to remedy problems it may identify in the functioning of the Organization. Applicant¡¯s request for determination of individual responsibilities: Assuming the Applicant intended to rely on article 10.8 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, such article allows the...

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...

The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has not submitted any evidence to support his claim that the Respondent was biased towards him and nothing in the case record suggests otherwise. His contention therefore fails.

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not identified any detrimental effects on him caused by the combination of the selection processes established or that he was; misled by the combined process.;. The Applicant did not meet one of the job requirements, therefore, he had no expectation of being selected against the posts.; In the absence of any prospect of being selected for the Posts, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not established that he suffered any harm from being considered along with other candidates.; Nothing on the record suggests that any of the questions that the...

The Tribunal found that the PCO¡¯s role was vitiated by bias towards the Applicant, the evaluation of the Applicant was not objective, the selection exercise was unlawful and the Organization failed to discharge the burden of presumption of regularity. Naming of names: The Statute does not define ¡°personal data¡±, but for the purposes of judgments, it is unlikely to include names. Applicants are routinely named by the UNDT and UNAT in the headings of published cases except in circumstances where anonymity is granted by the Tribunal. Bias: In the legal sense, may be actual or apparent but either...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal noted that, in the letter to the; Applicant dated 19 November 2012, the Chief Human Resources and Planning Section (HRPS), informed her that her application of for the FS-5 post was not successful. The Applicant was also informed that a suitable positin had been identified for her, namely, a Claims Assistant at the G-6 level. The Tribunal found that the identification of a G-6 level post for the Applicant who at the time encumbered an FS-4 level post could not be considered a suitable position for the Applicant as required by sections 10.2...