2011-��AT-110

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The staff member appealed on the ground that ��DT had made errors of fact in the judgment. ��AT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, ��AT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by ��DT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. ��AT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the ��DT��s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The staff member challenged the decision not to select her for the post of P-4 Arabic Reviser on the ground that the selection procedure for the consideration of 15-day and 30-day candidates was not followed. ��DT found that the selection procedure was followed and that the staff member, a 15-day candidate, was considered and found unsuitable for the post before the 30-day candidates were considered. Having found that the staff member��s right to be assessed fairly and adequately had been satisfied and because she had not been found suitable for the post, ��DT concluded that there was no error in not selecting her and in interviewing the 30-day candidates. ��DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

In reviewing administrative decisions regarding appointments and promotions, ��DT examines the following: (1) whether the procedure as laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules was followed; and (2) whether the staff member was given fair and adequate consideration. The Secretary-General has broad discretion in making decisions regarding promotions and appointments. In reviewing such decisions, it is not the role of ��DT or of ��AT to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General regarding the outcome of the selection process.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Abbassi

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement