2016-Ģ��ƵAT-640

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not address any error of fact or law in the Ģ��ƵDT judgment. Ģ��ƵAT held that the irregularities in the procedure did not amount to a breach of the Appellant��s due process rights. Ģ��ƵAT held that it was irrelevant whether the Appellant filed his application before Ģ��ƵDT in the interests of justice or seeking an award of moral damages since there was no evidence of damages. 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 D-2 level post. Ģ��ƵDT issued its judgment, granting the application in part. Ģ��ƵDT found numerous procedural irregularities in the two advertisements issued for the post. Ģ��ƵDT held that the mandatory provisions for the selection process were not followed for the post and that the Applicant��s right to be fully and fairly considered for the post was not respected. Ģ��ƵDT, however, rejected the Applicant��s claims that the selection decision was tainted by improper motives and bias, that the requirements of the job opening were not respected, and that the candidate lacked a crucial element for the post. Ģ��ƵDT held that even if Applicant had been recommended, he would have had no right to be selected for the post. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the request to set aside the contested decision and to award compensation in-lieu. Ģ��ƵDT found that an express request for moral damages arising from the breach of the Appellant��s due process rights was absent.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT possesses jurisdiction to rescind a selection or promotion process but may do so only under extremely rare circumstances. When candidates have received fair consideration, discrimination and bias are absent, proper procedures have been followed, and all relevant material has been taken into consideration, Ģ��ƵDT shall uphold the selection/promotion. The Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. The Ģ��ƵAT jurisprudence has clarified that, in reviewing such decisions, it is the role of Ģ��ƵDT or Ģ��ƵAT to assess whether the applicable Regulations and Rules have been applied and whether they were applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner. The Tribunals�� role is not to substitute their decision for that of the Administration.

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

Diatta

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement