Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The burden of establishing bias or the perception of bias lies with the Applicant once the Respondent has made a minimal showing of regularity in the recruitment process. The Applicant must establish with clear and convincing evidence that he was not given full and fair consideration for the vacancy. Whilst the Tribunal was surprised that a person in the Applicant¡¯s position and with the Applicant¡¯s experience should not be recommended, it was unable to conclude that the Applicant had not been given full and fair consideration, particularly in view of the fact that some 13 other candidates...

Language of examination: Pursuant to section 5.6 of ST/AI/2010/7, candidates may choose to take the oral examination in either English or French.Alternative compensation: Given that the placement of the Applicant on the roster of successful candidates does not guarantee that she will be selected for a position, and thus does not carry appointment or promotion, the Tribunal is not required to set an amount of compensation that the Respondent may elect to pay as an alternative to the specific performance ordered.Compensation and evidence of injury: While the Applicant seeks compensation for the...

Suspension of selection process: In view of the broad discretionary authority of the Secretary- General in the organization of services, he may at any time before a candidate has been notified of his/her selection, suspend a selection process. However, he must have a legitimate ground to do so.30-day and 60-day candidates: Pursuant to ST/AI/2006/3, 30-day candidates must be considered before 60-day candidates.Cancellation of a vacancy announcement: The Administration has the obligation to put an end to a selection process vitiated by irregularities. However, it commits a fault for which it...

Jurisdiction: The Tribunal is not competent to examine the lawfulness of a decision made by ECOWAS.

Categories of candidates: The staff selection system established in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 was based on a rigid hierarchy of three categories of candidates in terms of priority consideration: 15, 30 and 60-day mark candidates. If a candidate belonged to a priority category he or she was excluded from the less priority ones. Internal, non-internal and external candidates: ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 distinguished between: (1) internal candidates, strictly defined in section 1; (2) non-internal candidates, comprising staff members who did not fall within this definition; and (3) external candidates, those...

Outcome: The application was rejected. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the implementation of the contested decision would cause her irreparable damage.

The Tribunal is satisfied that since the Post was advertised well before the expiry of the roster on which the successful candidate¡¯s name was included, the successful candidate was eligible to be selected from the roster andthe decision to select him from the roster was, hence, proper. The Tribunal finds that as a roster candidate the Applicant should have been informed by the hiring manager within 14 days after the selection decision was made in writing. The Tribunal finds that even in the absence of a clearly stated timeframe for notifying applicants who have been eliminated prior to the...

Roster candidates: The fact that a candidate is rostered does not prevent the hiring manager from conducting a selection process and it does not give the roster candidate any kind of priority. Assessment methods: Hiring managers have large latitude in choosing the methods used to assess candidates, taking into account the technical requirements of the post. In particular, resorting to subject matter experts to evaluate work samples of the candidates is in accordance with the rules of the staff selection system. Scope of judicial review: It is not for the Tribunal to substitute its own...

The Tribunal agreed that the Applicant had had a legitimate expectation of promotion but found that the granting of SPA compensated him adequately in the circumstances. It is not possible for the Tribunal to order promotion from General Service to any other category as this has been specifically prohibited by the General Assembly. The Applicant¡¯s reliance on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT 1169 Abebe was misplaced because in that case the Respondent was not granted a promotion, rather it found that Abebe was eligible for promotion. The distinction is important. However, the Tribunal did find that the Applicant was...

The Tribunal found that the Executive Secretary of ECA, who made the decision to fill the post from the roster, was not acting unlawfully in so doing, since ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system) permitted this.