Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity and proved with clear and convincing evidence that his non-selection was based on improper motive.

The Applicant¡¯s claims of ulterior motive are unsubstantiated. The preferential consideration of female candidates only applies when women are under-represented according to sec. 3(c) of the memorandum from the Secretary-General of 11 February 2019 on the implementation of ST/AI/1999/9 (Special measures for the achievement of gender equality). The evidence shows, however, that women are not under-represented in the relevant unit. Therefore, the Applicant was not entitled to preferential consideration due to her gender. The Administration has shown that the applicable procedure was followed...

The Tribunal noted that, on 12 January 2018, the Deputy Director of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS People and Change Group, in a telephone call, informed unequivocally the Applicant of the contested decision. The Applicant claimed that he was only officially made aware of his non-selection for the post when a formal announcement was made on 1 March 2018, which stated that another candidate had been chosen for the position. The Tribunal found that this claim was ill-founded, as a verbal unequivocal communication is sufficient for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) (see Auda 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-746). The Tribunal considered...

The Respondent has minimally shown that the Applicant received a full and fair consideration. The Applicant was lawfully not selected for the Post, as her test result was below the passing score. The requirements the written test directly related to the responsibilities of the contested position. There was no indication of any alterations or discrepancies with the marking methodology. The Organization does not have a promotion system where managers are obligated to develop and train supervisees for promotion opportunities and assist them in career growth and, therefore, job applicants have no...

The Applicant applied for JO 57267 as a former staff member, and in the same capacity he filed his challenge to the non-selection decision for JO 57267. There was no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR and his standing as an applicant for JO 57267. The alleged fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR in their recruitment processes applied the legal fiction of treating former staff members as internal applicants for a period of time, did not create a nexus extending over any other recruitment processes, such as the contested one.

The Tribunal noted the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant gave unsolicited responses in line with the Panel¡¯s questioning format which he seems to have been privy to. The Panel had no opportunity to ask him questions in areas such as gender since he gave successive examples in different aspects of the interview areas in a short time span. This evidence supported the finding that the Applicant¡¯s conduct did not facilitate his meaningful engagement with the Panel beyond what took place. He could not argue therefore that the Panel did not probe to elicit more appropriate examples from him...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 21 February 2019. She requested management evaluation on 27 April 2019 and she was late by 5 days. Since the request for management evaluation was time-barred, the application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable.

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found that it was not receivable ratione temporis. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant contested four decisions that took place in 2014 and 2015, she only filed an application with the Tribunal in January 2020, that is around five years later. The record showed that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the contested decisions on 30 January 2020. She received a response on 31 January 2020 informing her that her request was time-barred. The same day, she filed an application before the Tribunal. In accordance with art. 8.4 of the...

The Respondent produced adequate contemporaneous written documentation to minimally show that the Applicant received a full and fair consideration pursuant to Lemonnier and Verma. The Applicant failed to rebut this with clear and convincing evidence, noting that the contested non-selection decision was solely based on him failing this written test and that no evidence on record points to any ulterior motives.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to review preparatory steps of an administrative decision and rejected the application as not receivable.