2011-Ģ��ƵAT-141

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in law or in fact in its assessment that the issue before it was the amount of compensation. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s approach in considering the Appellant��s prospects of success was entirely reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. Ģ��ƵAT held that it was not the function of Ģ��ƵDT or Ģ��ƵAT to take on the substantive role with which the interview panel was charged and to find that the Appellant was the only qualified candidate. Ģ��ƵAT recalled that the jurisdiction vested in Ģ��ƵDT is to review alleged procedural deficiencies and to rectify any which are found. Ģ��ƵAT found no error in the approach adopted by Ģ��ƵDT in its determination on the issue of compensation. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds meriting a reversal of the Ģ��ƵDT��s findings. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select him. The Secretary-General acknowledged that a flawed selection procedure had occurred and awarded him six months�� net base salary. Ģ��ƵDT, limiting itself to the issue of adequacy of compensation, found that the compensation was adequate and dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

The burden of satisfying Ģ��ƵAT that a judgment of Ģ��ƵDT is defective rests with the appellant. The jurisdiction vested in Ģ��ƵDT is to review alleged procedural deficiencies and, if they are established, to apply the statutory remedy it deems appropriate to rectify such deficiency in all the circumstances.

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

Frohler

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement