Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the issue of whether the staff member¡¯s application was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer was irrelevant in determining whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. On the basis that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT failed to enquire as to what options were available to the staff member on Inspira at the time of application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s findings that Inspira did not reflect the variety of the educational system of all the Member States equally and that the staff member¡¯s candidature had not been afforded full and fair consideration were not supported by the facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT erred on a question of fact which resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT judgment, and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT for additional fact-finding.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested his non-consideration and non-selection for a position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT found that his application had been erroneously screened out by a Human Resources Officer on the basis that he did not hold a first-level university degree as required by the job opening. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT found that the Applicant¡¯s application had not been afforded full and fair consideration and that, as a result, his exclusion from the recruitment process for the job opening was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT rescinded the contested decision and, in the alternative, awarded compensation.
Legal Principle(s)
A factual determination cannot be made without the relevant evidence.