2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1071

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Organisation correctly excluded the Appellant from the recruitment process for not meeting the minimum education requirement, as he had not entered his educational credential accurately. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant had had access to the Inspira Applicant��s Manual and World Higher Education Database, which was embedded into Inspira. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s argument that Ģ��ƵDT failed to implement the Ģ��ƵAT judgment to carry out additional fact-finding on the issue of whether Inspira reflected the variety of the educational systems of all Member States equally in 2016 was without merit. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s argument that Ģ��ƵDT failed to address the central issue of Inspira's adaptability to the Russian education system was without merit. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant��s application. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment (Ģ��ƵDT/2019/185).

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant appealed his non-selection for a position. In Ģ��ƵDT/2018/104 (first Ģ��ƵDT judgment), Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant��s job application had been erroneously screened out of the recruitment process and that that was unlawful. The matter was appealed to Ģ��ƵAT and remanded to Ģ��ƵDT for further fact-finding. On remand, in Ģ��ƵDT/2019/185 (second Ģ��ƵDT judgment), Ģ��ƵDT concluded that the contested decision of the Administration not to consider the Applicant��s candidacy was lawful on the basis that the Applicant had incorrectly entered his education level as below the minimum educational requirement (first-level university degree), which meant that he was automatically screened out of the process. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

The Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. In reviewing such decisions, it is the role of Ģ��ƵDT and Ģ��ƵAT to assess whether the applicable regulations and rules have been applied and whether they were applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner. The Tribunals�� role is not to substitute their decision for that of the Administration. Compensation cannot be awarded when no illegality has been established; it cannot be granted when there is no breach of the staff member��s rights or administrative wrongdoing in need of repair.

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