2014-��AT-477

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that the Appellant did not succeed in establishing any error of fact or law that would warrant reversal of the ��DT judgment. ��AT held that ��DT correctly concluded that the non-selection of the Appellant was not vitiated by any improper motive. ��AT noted that, even if the alleged flaws were to be considered irregularities, they would not be important enough to render the proceedings null or to reflect a violation of rights and actual harm or discrimination suffered by the Appellant. ��AT held that no compensation should be awarded to the Appellant, as no illegality or breach of his rights was found. ��AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ��DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to not select him for a post. ��DT found that the Applicant failed to substantiate his claim that the selection process was tainted by bias or improper motive. ��DT also dismissed the Applicant��s claim that the delay in receiving a response from the Management Evaluation Unit caused him loss or damage. ��DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

A claim about a non-selection decision resulting from a contested competitive process must be decided on a case-by-case basis, by assessing if the selection methods applied during the different stages of the process were in accordance with the applicable norms and provided a fair, objective, and non-discriminatory treatment of all the 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 ��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

Charles

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement