Â鶹APP

The Tribunal found that determining that the Applicant did not meet the minimum professional relevant experience for the Position was in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, and based on a reasonable and plausible approach. It also concluded that the Applicant had no legitimate expectation to be the successful candidate with regard to that selection process, even if he had been initially considered eligible, allowed to take the written test and underwent the competency-based interview.

The UNDT noted that in her 2011 and 2012 ePAD (performance document), the Applicant had received positive ratings, and that the 2013 ePAD was never finalized. The applicable performance management system (PAMS) requires the finalization of the ePAD in case of non-renewal of appointment for reasons related to performance. Accordingly, since UNHCR had failed to follow its rules with respect to performance evaluation and performance management, including mediation protocols, and, furthermore, the ¡°alternative¡± process followed by UNHCR did not provide an equivalent standard of safeguards...

The UNDT found that her first complaint was filed almost nine months after her separation, whereas UNFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority requires that such complaints be filed within 6 months from the date of the last incident. Additionally, the Tribunal found that as per said Policy, the Applicant had no legal standing to file formal complaints at the time she did so in view that she had been previously separated from service. As a result, the application was rejected.

While in her application she refers to a broad spectrum of decisions, only one of them¡ªthe decision not to grant her ASHI¡ªwas the subject of a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal found, accordingly, that the application with respect to issues which were not previously subjected to management evaluation was not receivable, ratione materiae. With respect to the denial of ASHI, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had been first notified of the contested decision on 1 May 2014. Due to ongoing discussions, the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation only on 18 July 2014...

The Tribunal noted that, in fact, the selection procedure for the post had never been completed: a revised vacancy announcement (VA) for the same post was later re-advertised and the recruitment process was still pending. The Tribunal considered that the second VA was a continuation of the same selection process, for which a final decision had still to be made, hence the application was rejected as irreceivable as it was premature.

After completing his application, at the Tribunal¡¯s request, the Applicant did not respond to 2 orders and 2 notifications from the Tribunal requesting him to submit his comments, if any, on the issue of receivability of the application raised by the Respondent in his reply. Given this, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was no longer interested in the outcome of legal proceedings he instituted and that the case should be closed for abandonment of proceedings.

The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable, considering that the responsibility to pursue a case remains with the applicant and that, even when he learnt that no (timely) management evaluation had been requested in his case, he took four additional months to submit such request.

The Tribunal found that although the requirements under the Policy and Procedures on Assignments and Promotions (¡°PPAP¡±) with respect to the level of detail/content of the minutes of the deliberations of the Senior Assignments Committee were only minimally met, this did not invalidate the selection process. The evaluation of both the Applicant and the successful candidate was made against the criteria as contained in the job description, based on the candidates¡¯ respective fact sheets, and not on any wrong assumptions or errors. The Tribunal found that the Applicant received full and fair...

The Tribunal found that a fundamental procedural flaw had occurred since the same staff member had fulfilled the roles of both the Applicant¡¯s first and second reporting officers. However, no financial compensation was warranted, as the Applicant did not demonstrate that he sustained any material or moral damage stemming from this breach.

The Tribunal found that none of the alleged flaws was substantiated.