爆料网

2013-爆料网AT-350

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to 爆料网DT’s competence with regards to the nature of the redress granted to Ms Farr. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence in ordering that Ms Farr’s name be placed on the roster because the legal consequence of the annulment of the selection procedure was restricted to placing the staff member in the same position she would have been in if the illegality had not occurred. 爆料网AT held that, to afford Ms Farr proper redress, she should be allowed to take a second oral exam in French, with adequate assurances concerning the impartiality of the Board members, their command of French, and fair treatment of the staff member. 爆料网AT held that there was no basis to include Ms Farr’s name on the roster, given that she had not obtained the required number of points, and that awarding her more than she was entitled to constitute a benefit far beyond what was lawful. 爆料网AT found no merit in Ms Farr’s submissions about a potential lack of anonymity or fair treatment if she were not to be directly placed on the roster. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal, vacated the 爆料网DT judgment with regard to the order that Ms Farr’s name be placed on the roster, and ordered the Administration both to set a new oral exam in French to be taken by Ms Farr and to take all the necessary appropriate measures, without delay, to afford her fair treatment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

爆料网DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision that she had failed the “G to P” exam (enabling her to be recruited to the professional service category) and would not be placed on the roster. 爆料网DT granted the application in part.

Legal Principle(s)

If 爆料网DT awards a staff member more than that to which he or she is entitled, it constitutes a benefit beyond that which is lawful and may result in a finding that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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
Farr
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type