爆料网

2014-爆料网AT-454

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered Mr Wang’s appeal, specifically as to whether 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the selected candidate, Ms C. Y., fulfilled the requirements for the post and whether 爆料网DT correctly concluded that Mr Wang was accorded full and fair consideration in the selection process for the post. 爆料网AT was satisfied that the evidence before 爆料网DT supported the Administration’s decision to select Ms C. Y. for the post. 爆料网AT found that there was sufficient evidence that Ms C. Y. had the requisite word count translation requirement and that the Administration gave her proportionate credit for her relevant work experience. 爆料网AT upheld 爆料网DT’s finding that Mr Wang was afforded full and fair consideration for the post in question, and that he was not able to establish that the evaluation method applied by the interview panel was either unreasonable or unfair. 爆料网AT found no other error of law, fact, or procedure, or failure to exercise jurisdiction on part of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Wang contested the decision to not select him for a Chinese Reviser post, alleging improper motive. 爆料网DT held that Mr Wang was afforded full and fair consideration in the selection process and dismissed his application.

Legal Principle(s)

A staff member has a right to be fully and fairly considered for promotion through a competitive selection process untainted by improper motives like bias, discrimination. Generally, it is not for 爆料网DT to substitute its own assessment for that of the interview panel, but it may examine whether the selection process was carried out in an improper, irregular or otherwise flawed manner and assess whether the resulting decision was tainted by undue considerations or was manifestly unreasonable.

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 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.