2014-Ģ��ƵAT-397

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that, given the open animosity and ill-feeling between the PCO and the staff member, the Administration should not have included the former in the interview panel. Ģ��ƵAT held that the test for apparent bias applied by Ģ��ƵDT was correct, regardless of whether a fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the interview panel was biased. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT was best placed to calculate on the evidence the appropriate level of compensation and found no reason to disturb the award of USD 50,000 in moral damages. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Accountability Referral: Ģ��ƵAT affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT referral to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant contested his non-selection for various positions. Ģ��ƵDT found that Mr Postica��s role as Programme Case Officer (PCO) was vitiated by his bias towards the Applicant; that the evaluation scores accorded to the Applicant by the interview panel did not objectively reflect the facts about his education and work experience; and that the selection exercise was unlawful as it breached ST/AI/2006/3. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Secretary-General had failed to demonstrate to a minimal standard that the selection decision was otherwise made in a regular manner. Ģ��ƵDT awarded the Applicant compensation in lieu of rescission and moral damages. Ģ��ƵDT referred the case to the Secretary-General, pursuant to Article 10. 8 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute, for appropriate action to be taken to enforce the accountability of those staff members, the members of the interview panel and the ultimate decision-maker, who were responsible for the biased assessment and unlawful non-selection of the Applicant.

Legal Principle(s)

A person called upon to make a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds; it is immaterial that, subjectively, he may consider himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the person affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice.

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

Finniss

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement