2025-Ģ��ƵAT-1578

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT noted that the staff member had applied for vacancies of different posts, at different times, with different selection processes, and had not been selected for different reasons. The Ģ��ƵAT found that the Ģ��ƵDT had correctly decided that each of these decisions was separate and there was no evidence that they were related. The Ģ��ƵAT held that she had not met her burden of showing that the impugned Judgment was defective.

The Ģ��ƵAT held that the application in respect of the post in Pretoria was clearly out of time and in respect of the post in Nairobi premature and, as such, not receivable.

The Ģ��ƵAT found that the Administration had minimally shown that the staff member��s candidature for the post in Amman had been given full and fair consideration, and she had failed to show that the selection process had been unfair or tainted by bias, discrimination, or improper motive.

The Ģ��ƵAT concluded that the Ģ��ƵDT had not erred in finding that the decision not to select her for the Amman post had been lawful.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A staff member contested decisions not to select her for posts in Pretoria, Amman and Nairobi.

In Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2024/058, the Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application. The Ģ��ƵDT found that the staff member had been given fair and adequate consideration during the selection process underlying the decision not to select her for the Amman post and that her application in respect of the other non-selection decisions was not receivable.

The staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case.

The onus is on each party to present relevant evidence in support of their case. If there is relevant evidence in the possession of the other party, a party can apply to the Dispute Tribunal to order its production.

There is no obligation on the Appeals Tribunal to seek evidence.

Generally speaking, when candidates have received fair consideration, discrimination and bias are absent, proper procedures have been followed, and all relevant material has been taken into consideration, the Dispute Tribunal shall uphold the selection/promotion.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case.

There is no obligation on the Appeals Tribunal to seek evidence.

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

Zekriat Swaidan

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement