Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The apportionment of points was not done fairly or objectively in two respects:- Experience: logically, either both the Applicant and the selected candidate should have received the maximum 50 points or the Applicant should have been given more than the selected candidate.- Languages: the Applicant¡¯s had five less points than the selected candidate. An objective evaluation would have given her more. Outcome: The Tribunal found that evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for the concerned position was not carried out in a full and fair manner and awarded her compensation in the amount of 4...

In declaring the Applicant¡¯s appeal time-barred on the issue of the reclassification of her post, the Secretary-General wrongfully considered that the Administration¡¯s failure to take action on the Applicant¡¯s appeal of a classification decision was an implicit decision of refusal that she should have contested within the time limits set forth in former staff rule 111.2 (a). ST/AI/1998/9 sets out special procedures for contesting a post classification or reclassification. In particular, it provides for the referral of the appeal to a Classification Appeals Committee. When an appeal is referred...

Outcome: Application dismissed, but the applicant awarded USD500 in nominal compensation for not being informed in time.

In his request for review to the Secretary-General, the Applicant contested the decision not to appoint him to the post of Chief (D-1), Information and Communication Technology Division, at ESCWA. Subsequently, in his appeal to the JAB, the Applicant sought to contest several other decisions. The only decision that the Tribunal is competent to examine is the decision for which administrative review was sought. The evaluation of candidates to a post falls within the discretion of the Secretary-general and the Tribunal will not substitute its views to that of the Secretary-General. However, as...

Outcome: The applicant succeeds. Compensation ordered for distress and loss of career development and associated benefits.

Outcome: Application dismissed, but award of a nominal compensation of USD 1,000 for procedural deficiencies in the selection process.

According to the Organization¡¯s broad discretion to reassign its employees to different functions, provided that the new position is in line with the grade, qualifications and professional experience, the Applicant could have been redeployed in principle. As legally required prior consultations with staff representatives were not held and - in addition - the agency showed lack of good faith by informing the Applicant only by ¡®all staff e-mail¡¯, procedural flaws vitiated the contested decision. Regardless of its significance, non-compliance with legal provisions specified in art. 2.1 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

The Board of Examiners decided that the applicant did not satisfy the educational requirement. The applicant believed that she was qualified because she had obtained a vocational training from the Centre d¡¯Ecriture et de Communication (¡°the Centre¡±), and that supportive remarks made about this by her supervisor and work colleagues confirmed her belief. The Centre was not a university or equivalent institution in the French educational system, and the applicant had not ¡°five years of continuous service with the United Nations Secretariat by 31 December 1989¡±. These prerequisites did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the decision not to select the Applicant was appropriately reviewed by the JAB panel and therefore proper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the requirement of relevant experience was appropriate and necessary for this particular vacancy and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the JAB panel addressed the appropriate legal principles and that, in applying those princples to the facts of the case, it asked the correct questions and considered the appropriate authorities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant failed to satisfy it that there was any material irregularity...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant clearly identified the administrative decision she wished to contest, and the fact that her Counsel stated that the contested decision was dated 14 April 2010 (the day of her being advised of her non-selection) and not 13 July 2010 (the date of the OIOS/USG¡¯s ultimate selection decision) did not make any difference, as the latter decision was merely confirming the former and could be perceived as being impliedly contested in the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that the Under Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services¡¯ ultimate selection decision...