2018-Ģ��ƵAT-878

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in finding the Hiring Manuals binding on the Administration, nonetheless, confirming that the Hiring Manager��s reliance on the shortlist prepared by the CSS/OSU constituted a procedural irregularity in terms of Section 7. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3, which undisputedly enjoys binding legal authority. Ģ��ƵAT held that such irregularities only result in the rescission of a non-selection decision or of the decision not to shortlist a candidate in case the candidate had a significant chance, which could not be verified in this case, the same logic being applicable to compensation for material damages due to a loss of a ��chance��. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in awarding moral damages to Ms. Pinto, given the absence of concrete evidence of harm. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant contested the evaluation process which led to Ģ��ƵOG��s decision not to consider her for an assessment test and interview following the application to the Job Opening. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant had not been given full and fair consideration. Ģ��ƵDT ordered rescission of the decision not to shortlist the Applicant and awarded her compensation for moral damages.

Legal Principle(s)

The Secretary-General has broad discretion in making decisions regarding promotions and appointments. It is not the role of Ģ��ƵDT and Ģ��ƵAT to substitute the Secretary-General��s decision regarding the selection processes. The burden of proof lies on the candidate that challenges the selection process. The proof must show clear and convincing evidence that he or she did not receive full and fair consideration of his or her candidacy, the applicable procedures were not followed, the members of the panel exhibited bias, or irrelevant material was considered, or relevant material ignored. The Hiring Manuals are not binding on the Administration. According to the established Ģ��ƵAT jurisprudence, ��rules, policies or procedures intended for general application may only be established by duly promulgated SG��s bulletins and administrative issuances��. An irregularity in the selection procedure set out in ST/AI/2010/3 only results in the recission of a non-selection decision or a decision not to shortlist the candidate if the candidate would have had a significant chance of selection. The same logic applies to compensation for material damages due to a loss of a ��chance�� of selection which, according to the Ģ��ƵAT jurisprudence, becomes too speculative where the chance is less than ten percent. A mere procedural violation is not sufficient to warrant moral damages in the absence of concrete evidence of harm.

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

Pinto

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement