2015-惇蹋厙AT-603

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT held that it was disingenuous for 惇蹋厙RWA to suggest that the Appellant＊s transfer application was considered in the same manner as the two candidates who were selected from the roster. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and erred in law in failing to have regard to the Appellant＊s due process entitlements. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT erred in law in relying on the authority of the Director of 惇蹋厙RWA Affairs, Lebanon, to reject the Appellant＊s application for assignment. 惇蹋厙AT did not uphold the contention that the Appellant had a legitimate expectation of succeeding the post. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT erred in fact in accepting the private assessment of the Director of 惇蹋厙RWA Affairs, Lebanon, of the Appellant and that this error was such that it led to a manifestly unreasonable decision. 惇蹋厙AT held that it was satisfied that there was merit in the Appellant＊s submission that 惇蹋厙RWA DT did not inquire into the circumstances which culminated, effectively, in excluding him from consideration for the position, such that the full and fair consideration to which he was entitled did not materialise. 惇蹋厙AT emphasized that the lost chance of being selected, even if slight, and the loss of a better chance of being recommended or included in the roster had material and financial consequences. 惇蹋厙AT upheld the appeal in part and vacated the 惇蹋厙RWA DT judgment. 惇蹋厙AT ordered rescission of the contested decision or, in the alternative, payment of USD 10,000 in compensation for the loss of chance of being considered for the position.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to consider him for a position. 惇蹋厙RWA DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

The Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection.

Outcome

Appeal granted

Outcome Extra Text

Only financial compensation; Only financial compensation.

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

Niedermayr

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement