Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Receivability: Since the Applicant was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG when the contested decision was taken, it indeed affected his terms of appointment. The Tribunal is thus competent to examine the case in accordance with article 2.1 of its Statute. Selection procedure: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR based its decision on the advice of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDSS which did not grant clearance to the Applicant¡¯s candidacy. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR was not compelled to follow the advice of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDSS concerning the candidacy of the Applicant because this practice is not codified in any legal text of regulatory character. Hence, the contested decision is illegal...

The Tribunal held that the Programme Manager failed to consider the Applicant¡¯s candidacy at the 15-day mark as provided by ST/AI/2006/3. In this respect, the Tribunal noted that she was put in a pool with 30-day mark candidates and that most of these candidates were considered before she was. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not been fully and fairly considered because the Programme Manager and two of the Interview Panel members had deemed her unsuitable for the contested post prior to the commencement of the interview process. Since the Interview Panel failed to...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not raised a prima facie case that the decision was arguably unlawful or that he would suffer irreparable damage from its implementation.

The initial decision not to confirm the Applicant to the post was taken by an unidentified person whereas only the High Commissioner has the authority to take decisions on promotions. This decision must therefore be rescinded by the Tribunal. A second decision not to confirm her to the post was taken by the High Commissioner following a recourse submitted by the Applicant to the APPB and the Tribunal must examine the legality of this decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Representative, who decided not to recommend the Applicant¡¯s confirmation to the post, took this decision without informing her beforehand and...

The Tribunal found that there was a failure of procedure and a violation of the Applicant¡¯s rights during both selection exercises. In this respect, the Tribunal held that the decision not to select the Applicant for the New York post was unlawful as the selection process was tainted by prejudice, which resulted in his candidacy not being given full and fair consideration. With respect to the Vienna post, the Tribunal held that once the programme case officer decided to test and interview the Applicant, who was a roster candidate, afresh with new candidates, it was inherently unfair for the...

The issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy of renewal; whether the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post was a valid exercise of the Organization¡¯s discretion; and whether the Applicant was fully and fairly considered for the newly created posts following a restructuring within the Organization. Outcome: The application failed and was dismissed.

i. Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found that prima facie unlawfulness had been established because the Applicant identified anomalies in the processes used by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON. ii. Particular urgency: The Tribunal noted that the selection decision had been communicated to the selected candidate by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON before the Applicant filed her application. As the contested decision had been implemented, the element of particular urgency had not been met. iii. Irreparable damage: The Tribunal found that the Applicant established irreparable damage in that there would be harm to her reputation and career...

The Applicant¡¯s criticism, that staff members with a vested interest in the process because they were unsuccessful in the promotion exercise procured the Staff Union resolution, is not a criticism that should be directed towards the Respondent¡¯s managers, but is rather a matter for the Staff Union. Staff member¡¯s right to a decision in a timely manner: The Respondent¡¯s approach to resolving this matter indicated a lack of urgency and sensitivity towards the legitimate expectations and feelings of the Applicant. Outcome: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded compensation of USD10,000 for emotional distress and...

Receivability of claim for relief: In his application before the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal, the Applicant merely requested compensation for the prejudice suffered. His request that the contested decision be rescinded, which was submitted two years later, must be rejected as time-barred since it was submitted long after the time limit for appeal had expired. 30 v. 60-day mark candidates: Section 6.2 of ST/AI/2002/4 prescribes that applications from 30-day mark candidates received after the 30-day mark shall be considered at the 60-day mark. Furthermore, it is clear from the provisions...

30 v. 60-day mark candidates: It is clear from the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3¡ªin particular sections 4.5, 7.1 and 9.2, as well as paragraph 3 of annex I and paragraph 4 of annex III¡ªthat applications of candidates eligible to be considered at the 30-day mark must be considered before those of candidates eligible to be considered at the 60-day mark. 60-day mark candidates may only be considered if there are no qualified 30-day mark candidates. Compensation: In setting the appropriate amount of compensation, the Tribunal must assess the chance that the Applicant would have been promoted had the...