2012-惇蹋厙AT-262

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

Regarding the lateral moves, 惇蹋厙AT held that the fact, that the selected candidate＊s lateral moves were not recorded in the requisite database, was not dispositive of the issue, nor did the definition of ※lateral move§ in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1 included such a requirement. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙DT＊s decision on this point was based on the evidence that clearly established that the selected candidate＊s lateral moves satisfied the requirements of ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1. Regarding the work experience, 惇蹋厙AT held that the evidence before 惇蹋厙DT supported its finding that the selected candidate had at least 10 years of relevant work experience as required by the vacancy announcement. Regarding the selection criteria, 惇蹋厙AT held that the Appellant＊s claims in this regard were entirely without merit. 惇蹋厙AT noted that 惇蹋厙DT had found that the applicable evaluation criteria had already been approved by a central review body in accordance with Section 4. 4 of ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 and that it was based on those criteria, indicated in the vacancy announcement, that the candidates had been interviewed. 惇蹋厙AT held that there were no errors in 惇蹋厙DT＊s judgment regarding the issues raised by the Appellant. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select him for a P-5 level post. 惇蹋厙DT rejected the application. 惇蹋厙DT analysed three factual issues against the criteria set forth in administrative instruction ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1 (Staff selection system): a) whether evaluation criteria were in place for the selection exercise for the P-5 vacancy; b) whether the selected candidate met the requirement of two lateral moves; and c) whether the selected candidate had the required years of work experience. The 惇蹋厙DT gave an affirmative answer to all three questions. The Applicant appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

It is not for 惇蹋厙DT to substitute its own assessment for that of the interview panel (or is it CRB) concerning pre-selected candidates.

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙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

Gordon

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement