2012-Ģ��ƵAT-262

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Regarding the lateral moves, Ģ��ƵAT held that the fact, that the selected candidate��s lateral moves were not recorded in the requisite database, was not dispositive of the issue, nor did the definition of ��lateral move�� in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1 included such a requirement. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s decision on this point was based on the evidence that clearly established that the selected candidate��s lateral moves satisfied the requirements of ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1. Regarding the work experience, Ģ��ƵAT held that the evidence before Ģ��ƵDT supported its finding that the selected candidate had at least 10 years of relevant work experience as required by the vacancy announcement. Regarding the selection criteria, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s claims in this regard were entirely without merit. Ģ��ƵAT noted that Ģ��ƵDT had found that the applicable evaluation criteria had already been approved by a central review body in accordance with Section 4. 4 of ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 and that it was based on those criteria, indicated in the vacancy announcement, that the candidates had been interviewed. Ģ��ƵAT held that there were no errors in Ģ��ƵDT��s judgment regarding the issues raised by the Appellant. 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-5 level post. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the application. Ģ��ƵDT analysed three factual issues against the criteria set forth in administrative instruction ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1 (Staff selection system): a) whether evaluation criteria were in place for the selection exercise for the P-5 vacancy; b) whether the selected candidate met the requirement of two lateral moves; and c) whether the selected candidate had the required years of work experience. The Ģ��ƵDT gave an affirmative answer to all three questions. The Applicant appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

It is not for Ģ��ƵDT to substitute its own assessment for that of the interview panel (or is it CRB) concerning pre-selected candidates.

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

Gordon

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement