2014-Ģ��ƵAT-425

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Regarding the non-selection for the Programme Budget Officer post, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the impropriety in the decision making. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had also failed to put forward any specific evidence substantiating her claim of discrimination, bias, and retaliation to warrant a reversal of the Ģ��ƵDT��s findings. Regarding the cancellation of the Administrative Officer post, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Administration had provided sufficient evidence to show that the cancellation of the post was based on Organisational and budgetary reasons and rejected, therefore, the submissions regarding retaliation and abuse of process. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error in the Ģ��ƵDT��s findings. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant contested the decisions 1) not to select her for the post of Programme Budget Officer and 2) to cancel the hiring process for the Administrative Officer post, for which she had been cleared, due to budgetary questions. In judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2013/050, Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant had not established any impropriety in the decision not to select her for the Programme Budget Officer post. Regarding the cancellation of the Administrative Officer post, Ģ��ƵDT found that the Administration��s Organisational and budgetary justifications were credible. Ģ��ƵDT concluded that the Applicant had not substantiated her allegations of bias in relation to her non-selection for either post.

Legal Principle(s)

Under Article 101. 1 of the Ģ��Ƶ Charter and Staff Regulation 4. 1, the Secretary-General has broad discretion in making decisions regarding appointments and promotions. In reviewing such decisions, it is not the role of Ģ��ƵDT or Ģ��ƵAT to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General regarding the outcome of the selection process.

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

Simmons

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement