Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision could have had an indirect impact on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract, a direct effect is needed in order to allow a staff member to contest an adverse administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA granted the change of modality of contract to the other individual did not have any bearing on the outcome of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision, because the application was dismissed on receivability grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in any of its factual findings resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Noting that the position in question remained vacant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to leave the position vacant was an exercise of the discretionary authority of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and that there was no procedural irregularity or error of law within the exercise of that discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the required burden to be heard on appeal, namely, he failed to identify any of the prescribed grounds of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was estopped from raising new arguments on appeal with respect to priority consideration and facts on enrolment which were not argued before...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have only received her application against the selection decision whilst the decision not to short-list the Appellant is examined as a part of the final non-selection decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective as the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, however it considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue of whether the staff member¡¯s application was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer was irrelevant in determining whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. On the basis that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to enquire as to what options were available to the staff member on Inspira at the time of application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that Inspira did not reflect the variety of the educational system of all the Member States equally and that the staff member¡¯s candidature had not been afforded full and fair...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal from the Secretary-General and an appeal from Mr Ross. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Ross¡¯s request for consideration by a full bench and held that he had no standing to make such a request and that the case did not raise any significant question of law in relation to the evidentiary standard of proof of moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any irregularity (procedural or substantive) in promotion cases will only give rise to an entitlement to rescission or compensation if the staff member has a significant or foreseeable chance for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered all the grounds of the appeal and held that the issue of whether the Appellant¡¯s application was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer was irrelevant to determine whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the main issue for its determination was whether, at the time of application, the Inspira system had provided all of the correct options to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was a factual determination which, without relevant evidence, could not be made. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to enquire as to what options were available in the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the erroneous requirement for a perfect command of English vitiated the entire recruitment process, noting that it was a typographic error and corrective measures were taken by conducting a manual review of the personal history profile of each candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its finding that the selection process was unlawful and lacked transparency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the need for the factual determination of all of the evidence related to the roster, placement, and removal of candidates required that the instant case be remanded to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s identity was probably known by the assessment panel at the time her test was marked. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s test was graded by the assessment panel after it had sent the transmittal memorandum to the Central Review Panel (CRP), creating the additional burden for the Appellant of having to persuade the assessment panel to change its original recommendation in the transmittal memorandum. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as the candidates recommended in the transmittal memorandum did not have this additional burden, it could not be said that all candidates received equal...

On the Applicant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of procedure by not allowing him to submit an affidavit from his former supervisor, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly exercised its broad discretion under Article 18(1) of its Rules of Procedure in determining the admissibility as well as the evidentiary value and weight of the proffered affidavit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusions were consistent with the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof for demonstrating an error in the judgment such as to warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, at the time of applying for the position, information was available to the Appellant in the form of the Inspira Applicant¡¯s Manual, including the World Higher Education Database list, which meant that he had the information about how to reflect his degree correctly in his electronic application and that an inaccurate application would render him ineligible for the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s challenge of the decision not to consider or select him for the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...