2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1014

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the reason upon which Ģ��ƵDT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. Ģ��ƵAT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by Ģ��ƵDT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the Ģ��ƵDT judgment. Ģ��ƵAT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not consistent with the idea of fair justice and reliability of selection processes within the Organisation, nor does it go in harmony with the good practices and the high standards of the Organisation. Ģ��ƵAT held that, given the fact that some compensation for harm had already been set, it found it reasonable to determine the in-lieu compensation in the amount of 3-months�� net base salary at the higher level. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the Ģ��ƵDT judgment in part, modified the Ģ��ƵDT judgment by rescinding the non-selection decision and determining an in-lieu compensation amount equivalent to 3-months�� net base salary at the D-1 level, and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT decision in respect of costs and compensation for harm.
Accountability referral: In addition, Ģ��ƵAT noted the Ģ��ƵDT��s findings of clear evidence of manipulation of the test results and selection process, which were serious and troubling. Ģ��ƵAT held that this warranted an investigation and referred the matter of the hiring manager��s conduct to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested his non-selection for a position. In its first judgment (No. Ģ��ƵDT/2017/012), Ģ��ƵDT acknowledged the illegality of the decision but did not order rescission of the non-selection decision on the grounds that it would have been disproportionate. Ģ��ƵDT awarded the Applicant USD 4,000 for procedural violations. Both parties appealed judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2017/012 to Ģ��ƵAT. In judgment 2017-Ģ��ƵAT-792, Ģ��ƵAT remanded the case for an additional finding of fact. In its second judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2019/150, Ģ��ƵDT granted the application in part as it found that the Applicant had not been given full and fair consideration in the selection exercise and that, since the rescission of the decision was no longer feasible, ordered the Administration to pay compensation for loss of chance equivalent to 50 percent of the difference between his salary and the salary he would have achieved for two years had he been selected (compensation for harm). Ģ��ƵDT awarded USD 3,000 in costs for manifest abuse of process.

Legal Principle(s)

In matters of compensation, due deference shall be given to the trial judge in exercising his or her discretion in a reasonable way following a principled approach.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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

Chhikara

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement