51Թ

UNDT/2018/106

UNDT/2018/106, Kinyanjui

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant’s allegations of abuse of power arose from an understandable and reasonable suspicion but are not substantiated by the evidence heard by the Tribunal.; The re-advertisement of the contested position including a description of the operational context does not constitute a procedural flaw and the explanations provided are sufficient to conclude that it was not prompted by an ulterior motive.; The Applicant has not demonstrated that he was subjected to a detriment by any procedural or substantive error in respect of the first advertised JO. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s candidacy for the first advertised JO was fully and fairly considered. However, the post was subsequently re-advertised under a different JO with an operational context for which the Applicant was no longer the candidate recommended by the manager, who preferred another candidate who was subsequently appointed.; The application fails and is dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant, a staff member of the Office of the High Commissioner for; Refugees (“UNHCR”), filed an application contesting the decision not to select him for a P-5 position.

Legal Principle(s)

Like the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner has broad discretion in matters of appointment and promotion. When reviewing such decisions, the Tribunal shall examine whether the procedure as laid down in the applicable rules was followed, and whether the staff member was given “fair and adequate consideration”.; When a staff member alleges that the contested decision was based on extraneous reasons, the burden of proving improper motives, such as abuse of authority, … rests with the person making the allegation.; The correct approach where a procedural irregularity had been identified is to examine whether any such error of procedure was causally linked to the decision not to promote the applicants.

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
Kinyanjui
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type