2019-Ģ��ƵAT-944

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the Appellant��s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. Ģ��ƵAT rejected the Appellant��s request for costs as there was no reason to believe that the submissions of the Secretary-General were not made in good faith or were an abuse of process. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not have a right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant received full and fair consideration for the position. Ģ��ƵAT also affirmed Ģ��ƵDT��s application of the priority consideration principle in which such consideration cannot be interpreted as a promise or guarantee to be appointed or receive what one is considered in priority for; and that to hold otherwise would compromise the highest standards of efficiency, competency, and integrity required in selecting the best candidate for staff positions under Article 101 of the Charter. Ģ��ƵAT held that, in the absence of evidence to support the Appellant��s contention of improper motive or discrimination, that ground of appeal failed. Ģ��ƵAT upheld and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT��s reasoning with respect to the Appellant��s claim for reinstatement in the service of Ģ��ƵHCR, agreeing that there was no causal link between such a claim and the selection process. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant was considered for a promotion. He was not selected initially and then received an offer to recommend him for the position, which he declined. The Applicant challenged the decision not to appoint him to the position. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant had received full and fair consideration for the position and dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

A staff member has a right to be fully and fairly considered for promotion through a competitive selection process untainted by improper motives like bias or discrimination. A candidate has no right to promotion. Priority consideration cannot be interpreted as a promise or guarantee to be appointed.

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

Ross

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement