2012-Ģ��ƵAT-242

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had merely repeated his submissions before JAB and Ģ��ƵDT and while voicing his disagreement with the conclusions, he did not succeed to establish any errors committed by the Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not possess the relevant professional qualification. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had not erred in affirming the JAB��s findings that the allegations of manipulation of the selection criteria were not well-founded and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s focus on the requirement of professional legal experience did not result in a manifestly unjust judgment. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in law and fact in finding that the legal officer who advised the Under-Secretary-General for Management on the Geneva JAB report had not been actively involved in the recruitment process. 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 for a P-3 Legal Officer post in the Secretariat of the former Joint Appeals Board (JAB) and Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC). Ģ��ƵDT rejected the application. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant was given full and fair consideration. Ģ��ƵDT found that the requirement of relevant experience was appropriate and necessary for the P-3 Legal Officer vacancy. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Administration was entitled to insist on such experience as a mandatory requirement. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the allegation of an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

Legal Principle(s)

Inordinate delays do not only adversely affect the administration of justice, but on occasions can inflict unnecessary anxiety and suffer on an applicant. The timely and efficient administration of justice is not only a requirement of the rule of law, but it also provides for a congenial working relationship among staff and management. Despite the non-provision in the Statute or the Rules of Procedure of a time frame for the disposal of cases, it is expected that legal disputes between staff and the Administration are resolved in a timely and efficient manner.

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

Charles

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement