51ÁÔÆæ

SummaryThe Tribunal concluded that the selection process was procedurally flawed for the following reasons: a. the job opening did not identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of the technical skills during the selection process;b. the selection panel did not include an expert on Russian language and a non-voting member representing the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, which the Tribunal considered was necessary in accordance with ST/AI/1998/7;c. the selection panel did not assess the short-listed candidates through an assessment...

The UNDT found no impropriety in connection with the successful candidate¡¯s lateral moves. The UNDT found that whether or not the successful candidate had two lateral moves was not determinative in this case as the Applicant was not recommended for the post for reasons unconnected to the successful candidate¡¯s eligibility. The application was dismissed.

The UNDT found that the Applicant did not meet the requirements of staff rule 3.6 and ST/AI/2011/5 and could not claim dependent child status for her niece. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal rejected the application as being not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal rejected the application as being not receivable ratione materiae.

The application was rejected as not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNDT found that the Applicant chose not to submit her candidacy for this P-5 vacancy. Accordingly, the outcome of the selection process had no direct legal effect on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. The UNDT found that the Applicant lacked standing to contest the selection process. The application was therefore dismissed.

The application was rejected as being manifestly inadmissible and not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not have standing to bring a claim in accordance with arts. 2 and 3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The application was struck out as manifestly inadmissible.

The Tribunal provided guidance to the Applicant at a case management discussion and issued a clear warning that he risked facing an order for costs under art. 10.6 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute if he was unable to present an effective challenge to the legal contentions set out in the Respondent¡¯s reply. The Applicant confirmed that he wished to proceed with his case and filed further submissions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing to contest the decision because (a) not being eligible to apply for the post, he had no stake in the administrative decision; and (b) he...