2019-Ģ��ƵAT-924

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered all the grounds of the appeal and held that the issue of whether the Appellant��s application was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer was irrelevant to determine whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. Ģ��ƵAT held that the main issue for its determination was whether, at the time of application, the Inspira system had provided all of the correct options to the Appellant. Ģ��ƵAT held that this was a factual determination which, without relevant evidence, could not be made. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT failed to enquire as to what options were available in the Inspira system. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that Inspira did not reflect the variety of the educational systems of all the Member States equally and that therefore the Appellant had not been afforded full and fair consideration was not supported by the facts. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT erred on a question of fact which resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment, and remanded the matter back to Ģ��ƵDT for additional findings of fact.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Following a previous application to Ģ��ƵDT and the corollary judgment, which was appealed to Ģ��ƵAT, this matter was remanded to Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵDT concluded that the Applicant��s application had not been afforded full and fair consideration and that, as a result, his exclusion from the recruitment process was unlawful. Ģ��ƵDT considered that the Applicant��s request for compensation for loss of opportunity to have been fully compensated and rejected his claim for moral damages on grounds that he did not meet the requisite standard of proof.

Legal Principle(s)

Without the relevant evidence, a factual determination cannot be made.

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

Krioutchkov

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement