Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Compensation in lieu is ¡°not related at all to the economic loss suffered¡± (see Nega 2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1393,para. 62) and there is no duty to mitigate loss as a precondition for receiving in lieu compensation (see Zachariah 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-764). It is, according to the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, an option that the Respondent can take instead of reinstating the Applicant in the service. Therefore, pecuniary loss or gain is not a relevant factor.

Consistent with the requirement to act fairly, justly and transparently, the Respondent bears the burden to show that the Applicant did not possess the core and functional...

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and the reasons provided by the Respondent for not selecting the Applicant and concluded that based on the information provided by the Applicant, the Respondent¡¯s decision not to select him cannot be faulted as being unfair. The Applicant did not have the CIPS level 2 certification that was a mandatory requirement for the position, and he did not prove that he had two years of progressive experience in procurement management.

Furthermore, the Applicant¡¯s suggestion in his submissions that the selection panel ought not to have relied only on his...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the decision not to select the staff member for TJO 161651 was lawful. It held that since the staff member did not challenge the cancellation of TJO 14924, under which the Administration initially advertised the position of Administrative Officer, that cancellation decision was not part of the contested decision under review. In any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the Administration had the discretion to cancel TJO 149241 and re-advertise the position under TJO 161651 after the selected candidate withdrew her candidature. It was under no obligation to invite the second...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the President of the Council of ICAO, in taking the decision not to approve the appointment of the staff member to the post, had regard to relevant considerations: the staff member was negatively assessed by the interview panel and the assessment centre, and had serious weaknesses in areas of vision and other competencies which were critical skills for ICAO. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the reasons provided by the President accorded with the facts.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that, although the President discussed the matter with some members of the panel, these discussions had not...

The Tribunal DECIDES to deny the application in its entirety.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had erred in law when it found that the applicable legal framework allowed the interview panel to conduct technical assessments of the candidates. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural irregularity of the panel having held a second round of interviews of a purely technical nature, would not suffice to grant the appeal because the outcome of the recruitment process would have been the same.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred with regards to the Agency¡¯s failure to correctly apply gender parity rules. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that gender parity had not...

[t]he Tribunal DECIDES to: a. Reject the Applicant¡¯s motion requesting to order the Respondent to provide necessary information; b. Find that the application is not receivable and that, even if it were, there is no merit to it, thus it would dismiss it; and Deny the Respondent¡¯s request for an award of costs.

ST/AI/2020/5 only applies to selection decision where the selection decision is made from either (a) ¡°a list of candidates¡± that was ¡°endorsed by a central review body¡± or (b) a competitive examination roster. None of these situations apply in this case. It is unchallenged that the contested selection decision was governed by ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system), which in sec. 3.1 provides that ¡°[t]he process leading to selection and appointment to the D-2 level shall be governed by the provisions of the present administrative instruction¡±. As per sec. 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1, for a...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she was denied a fair chance of promotion. The contested decision was lawful as the Administration appropriately exercised its discretion in matters of staff selection. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the Applicant¡¯s view that her involvement with ¡°contentious¡± discussions with DGACM management as a Staff Union representative has any bearing on the interview process for the contested position.

The Appeals Tribunal found, in relation to Mr. Qasem¡¯s exclusion from consideration for the Acting Head position, that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding Mr. Qasem¡¯s application not receivable. The Appeals Tribunal however found that in the circumstances of this case, it was in the interest of judicial economy to review the case on the merits without remand. The Appeals Tribunal found that while the Administration had unlawfully excluded Mr. Qasem¡¯s application from consideration, this irregularity had no impact on the selection decision. Considering Mr. Qasem¡¯s performance, administrative and...