2018-Ģ��ƵAT-880

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Secretary-General��s appeal was in direct conflict with his submissions to Ģ��ƵDT. While the Secretary-General acknowledged procedural irregularities by the Hiring Manager to Ģ��ƵDT, in his appeal he argued that no irregularities happened in removing the Applicant��s name from the list and that the Hiring Manager was entitled to exercise her discretion and correct her mistakes after further assessing the candidate��s qualifications. Ģ��ƵAT held that no evidence was presented to Ģ��ƵDT of a second assessment by the Hiring Manager or that a mistake was being corrected. Ģ��ƵAT found no error in the Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that the removal of the Applicant��s name from the list without further examining the qualifications was a procedural irregularity, as conceded by the Secretary-General in the Ģ��ƵDT hearing. Ģ��ƵAT held that it is not admissible for the Secretary-General to introduce new grounds of appeal which were not part of his case before the Ģ��ƵDT and that the submissions contesting the compensation awarded to the Applicant were entirely without merit. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Secretary-General, in presenting on appeal factual and legal arguments which directly contradicted his submissions to Ģ��ƵDT, had manifestly abused the appeals process. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to not recommend him for the post and not to place him on the roster of pre-approved candidates for openings with similar functions at the same level. Ģ��ƵDT found that the contested decision was flawed, the Organisation having failed to minimally show that the candidacy had been fully and fairly considered, and therefore the decisions not to select him for the post and/or place him on the roster were unlawful. Ģ��ƵDT ordered rescission of the contested decisions or, alternatively, a pecuniary compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

It is not admissible for the Secretary-General to introduce new grounds of appeal which were not part of his case before Ģ��ƵDT. Article 10. 5(a) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute creates a mandatory requirement upon Ģ��ƵDT to set an amount of compensation as an alternative to an order rescinding a decision concerning an appointment, promotion, or termination.

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

Munyan

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement