Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have impacted the decision of the case.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not misrepresented or failed to give complete consideration to the facts.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had nor erred in determining that the procedure as laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules had been followed.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the evidence on record contradicted the staff member¡¯s claim of extraneous considerations. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration had relied on rational categories of considerations in taking the contested decision and each consideration was valid.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s candidacy had been given full and fair consideration and that the applicable Regulations and Rules had been applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had not manifestly abused the appeals process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT pointed out that since no illegality had been found, there was no justification for awarding any compensation.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in the absence of an appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order to anonymize the staff member¡¯s identity, it followed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Practice Direction and continued the anonymization.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member contested a decision not to select him for a fixed-term position, at the P-5 level, of Senior Human Rights Officer and Coordinator of the Secretariat of OHCHR¡¯s International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/112, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application on the merits.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The Secretary-General has broad discretion in staff selection matters. In reviewing such decisions, it is the role of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or the Appeals Tribunal 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 its decision for that of the Administration.
In reviewing an administrative decision regarding staff selection, the following factors are considered: (1) whether the procedure as laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules was followed; (2) whether the staff member was given full and fair consideration, and whether the applicable Regulations and Rules were applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner.
Section 9.3 of ST/AI/2010/3 establishes that the Administration is not bound by the recommendation of the Hiring Manager in the staff selection exercise. The Hiring Manager can make recommendations, but it is the Head of Entity that is ultimately accountable for the selection decision and also responsible for setting targets in terms of gender parity and geographical representation, among other goals.
The presumption of regularity stands satisfied if the Administration is able to minimally show that full and fair consideration was given to the candidate. The burden of proof then shifts to the staff member to show, through clear and convincing evidence, that he was denied a fair chance of selection or promotion.
An order for legal costs would rarely be made, and usually after the party has been fairly warned of that consequence if the abuse of process continues.