2016-Ģ��ƵAT-652

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT addressed the Secretary-General��s appeal. Ģ��ƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General that Ģ��ƵDT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had improperly relied on ��logic�� to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked discretion to require all candidates to pass the competency-based interview; and, by ruling that additional weight had to be given to the staff member��s individual competency ratings in his performance evaluations even after he had failed the interview. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to promote him to the S-3 level in the Security and Safety Service (SSS), Department of Safety and Security (DSS). Ģ��ƵDT found that those within the SSS/DSS who designed and implemented the promotion exercise had acted in good faith. Ģ��ƵDT, however, found that the hiring manager had acted based on a flawed understanding of the role of competency-based interviews under ST/AI/2010/3 when he fettered his discretion by declining to recommend the Applicant for promotion based solely on the result of his competency-based interview. Ģ��ƵDT awarded the Applicant compensation for moral damages for the procedural error and unfairness to which he was subjected.

Legal Principle(s)

Under Article 101. 1 of the Ģ��Ƶ Charter and Staff Regulations 1. 2(c) and 4. 1, the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. The jurisprudence of Ģ��ƵAT 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 granted

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

Nikolarakis

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement