2012-��AT-259

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that the Appellant had failed to put forward evidence that the selection process for the post for which she had applied had been vitiated by any irregularity or of the existence of bias or misconduct in considering her candidacy. ��AT held that all the stages of the procedure had been followed and that the Appellant had benefitted from an objective examination and equal treatment to which all applicants are entitled. ��AT held that, in view of the evidence, the Appellant had no real chance of being appointed or shortlisted between the three candidates recommended. ��AT held that there were no grounds to support compensation. ��AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ��DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Former �� Administrative Tribunal judgment: The Applicant contested the decision not to select her for a post. The former �� Administrative Tribunal rejected the application on the grounds that the Applicant��s claim for compensation could not rely only on a procedural irregularity from which she had not suffered direct harm, considering that she stood no chance of being selected for the post.

Legal Principle(s)

For an irregularity in a promotion procedure to give rise to the annulment of the decision not to promote an official, he/she must have had a real chance of promotion (see also, Vangelova (Judgment No. 2011-��AT-172), Bofill (Judgment No. 2011-��AT-174) and Dualeh (Judgment No. 2011-��AT-175).

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

De Saint Robert

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement