Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF had conducted the selection process in a manner fully consistent with its administrative legal framework, including having provided detailed reasons for considering the staff member unsuitable for the post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his candidature had received full and fair consideration, and he had not shown through clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence of bias or ill-motive against him.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s failure to notify the staff member of the non-selection decision had been immaterial and had not violated his rights to due consideration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the non-selection decision was lawful and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s failure to act transparently constituted material irregularities.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had been correct in finding that the staff member¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was receivable.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that since the staff member had not requested management evaluation of other non-selection decisions, the Tribunals did not have jurisdiction to review them. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF had committed a material irregularity by failing to provide sufficient assistance in finding employment in the Organization. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Administration had not failed to apply appropriate priority consideration and that the separation decision was lawful.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member contested a decision to separate him from service and a decision not to select him for a post.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2024/071, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinded both contested decisions and set the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission at two years¡¯ net base salary.
The Secretary-General appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The candidate¡¯s qualifications remain the Organization¡¯s primary concern for the sake of good administration.
When affording priority consideration to staff members on abolished posts during a selection process, their suitability for the vacant post should first be assessed as a precondition. Priority consideration cannot be interpreted as a guarantee of selection.
Minor procedural errors cannot conclusively alter the lawfulness of a decision.
Only a final administrative decision taken at the conclusion of the process will have direct legal consequences for an applicant¡¯s terms of appointment and constitutes an appealable administrative decision.
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.