2011-Ģ��ƵAT-122

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by Ms Rolland and a cross-appeal against the award of damages by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that the selection process conducted by an interview panel can be rescinded under rare circumstances. Ģ��ƵAT noted that, in general, when candidates have received fair consideration, discrimination and bias are absent, proper procedures have been followed, and all relevant material has been taken into consideration, the selection shall be upheld. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ms Rolland failed to discharge the burden of proof, by showing through clear and convincing evidence that she was denied a fair chance of promotion. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ms Rolland did not show that the procedural lapses by Ģ��ƵDT in only being able to provide a short recording of the hearing, and not the entire recording or a transcript, affected the decision or the final outcome. Ģ��ƵAT held that failure of notification of non-selection may have a serious impact on the future career development of a staff member and that the award of damages, though nominal, was just and fair. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select her for three vacant posts for which she was considered. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application but awarded USD 500 as nominal damages for the Administration��s failure to notify her of her non-selection.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT possesses jurisdiction to rescind a selection or promotion decision but may do so only under extremely rare circumstances. All candidates before an interview panel have the right to full and fair consideration. The presumption of regularity is a rebuttable presumption; if management is able to show, even minimally, that the Appellant��s candidature was given full and fair consideration, then the presumption stands satisfied and thereafter, the burden of proof shifts to the Appellant.

Outcome

Appeal 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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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

Rolland

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement