±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration was not under an obligation to pursue a recruitment procedure once begun by filling the post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested administrative decision not to carry the recruitment process through to appointment, but rather to readvertise, was a valid and lawful exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, based on sound reasons inextricably linked to the interest of the service, namely the situation in Burundi, the need for additional skills, and compliance with the relevant legal instruments governing the recruitment procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, however it considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both an appeal from the Secretary-General and an appeal from Mr Ross. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this was a factual determination which, without relevant evidence, could not be made. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to enquire as to what options were available in the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to enquire as to what options were available to the staff member on Inspira at the time of application, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯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...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reason upon which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Andrysek. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

Starting with the presumption that official acts are regularly performed, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the Administration acted in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Rules when it invited three roster candidates for an informal interview and made a final selection from the roster. Given the presumption of regularity was satisfied, the burden of proof shifted on the staff member who must demonstrate that he was not given fair and adequate consideration. This, the staff member failed to do. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the staff member can only challenge a specific administrative decision, and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramsaroop, an appeal by the Secrteary-General and a cross-appeal by Miksch et al. While ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was reasonable for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to hold that Miksch et al had a significant chance of selection for the posts, it held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by assessing the lost opportunity for Mr. Miyashiro, Mr. Miksch, Mr. Ramsaroop and Mr. Mazioui as enduring until their retirement from the Organization, and compensating accordingly with a cap of two years¡¯ net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that these applicants had a further opportunity for promotion in the second selection...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s interpretation of the totality of the evidence on the record was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found that Mr Russo-Got was Candidate A for the P-3 test and Candidate F for the P-4 test and that ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS had submitted contemporaneous documentation showing that he was not recommended because he had failed the written assessment for the two tests. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly reviewed the contested decisions in accordance with the applicable law.