爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that, given the open animosity and ill-feeling between the PCO and the staff member, the Administration should not have included the former in the interview panel. 爆料网AT held that the test for apparent bias applied by 爆料网DT was correct, regardless of whether a fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the interview panel was biased. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was best placed to calculate on the evidence the appropriate level of compensation and found no reason to disturb the award of USD 50,000 in moral damages. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Accountability Referral: 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT referral to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
爆料网DT judgment: The Applicant contested his non-selection for various positions. 爆料网DT found that Mr Postica’s role as Programme Case Officer (PCO) was vitiated by his bias towards the Applicant; that the evaluation scores accorded to the Applicant by the interview panel did not objectively reflect the facts about his education and work experience; and that the selection exercise was unlawful as it breached ST/AI/2006/3. 爆料网DT found that the Secretary-General had failed to demonstrate to a minimal standard that the selection decision was otherwise made in a regular manner. 爆料网DT awarded the Applicant compensation in lieu of rescission and moral damages. 爆料网DT referred the case to the Secretary-General, pursuant to Article 10. 8 of the 爆料网DT Statute, for appropriate action to be taken to enforce the accountability of those staff members, the members of the interview panel and the ultimate decision-maker, who were responsible for the biased assessment and unlawful non-selection of the Applicant.
Legal Principle(s)
A person called upon to make a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds; it is immaterial that, subjectively, he may consider himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the person affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice.