±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that, pursuant to the Instruction Manual, a candidate for an advertised post was entitled to be apprised of the composition of the interview panel prior to the interview. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that by pointing out that she had been previously interviewed for the post and that there were ongoing proceedings before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT regarding her challenge to a prior selection exercise, the staff member had put the Administration on notice of the importance she attached to the panel¡¯s composition. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Kucherov did receive full and fair consideration for the post which was finally filled by another candidate. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no flaw in the competitive selection procedure and agreed with the Secretary-General that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment contained errors of fact and law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Section 7. 5 of ST/AI/2010/3, as amended, does not require a job opening to identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of technical skills. Rather, it provides that it may include a competency-based interview and/or other...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/100, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found that a ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the ±¬ÁÏÍø Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reiterated that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Secretary-General that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had improperly relied on ¡°logic¡± to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not address any error of fact or law in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the irregularities in the procedure did not amount to a breach of the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was irrelevant whether the Appellant filed his application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in the interests of justice or seeking an award of moral damages since there was no evidence of damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the lateral reassignment of a staff member, in this case, fell entirely within the discretion of the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no evidence of arbitrary and unlawful exercise of discretion in the appeal which could allow ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to pronounce on the discretion of the Administration. Finding no illegality and no evidence that the cancellation of the job opening had an adverse effect on the staff member¡¯s morale and professional reputation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the award of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that pursuant to Article 30 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP and considering the medical condition of Appellant¡¯s counsel, it was in the interests of justice to grant the Appellant¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file her comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to supplement his answer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accepted the Appellant¡¯s comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion as timely filed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Secretary-General¡¯s motion for leave to supplement his answer since his additional pleadings would not advance or assist with the disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had very thoroughly considered the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal from the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not correctly apply the law in considering Mr Riecan¡¯s challenge to the selection for the post and made errors of law and fact in accepting the staff member¡¯s application. On the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was a duty of the assessment panel in the course of a selection process to consider the e-PAS reports of the candidate and reflect that consideration in its own report, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that (1) ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make reference to a specific provision providing for this duty; (2) the fact that the panel did not take into...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the application was moot as the Appellant had already received the relief she requested, namely, the repetition of the selection exercise and her participation in it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to differ from ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s approach. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT supported ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s recommendation that tests be protected against the possibility of editing or alteration and further recommended that the Organisation strictly complied with its legal framework, particularly with respect to not entrusting staff functions to consultants and/or individual contractors. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT suggested that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the Registries...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their ¡°key¡± answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara¡¯s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be...