2017-��AT-770

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that ��DT correctly held that there had been compliance with all procedural obligations for a temporary appointment with regard to having two persons on the interview panel and that the selection exercise was not required to be reviewed by a CRB. ��AT held that there was no duty imposed on the Administration to place unsuccessful candidates on a roster of pre-approved candidates. ��AT held that there was no evidence of any discrimination or harassment or any basis for awarding the Appellant any damages for moral injury. ��AT held that ��DT committed no error of law, fact, or procedure in reaching that conclusion. ��AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ��DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select her for a temporary position. ��DT held that the composition of the interview panel was consistent with the legal framework. ��DT further held that there was no requirement that the selection exercise in the case had to be reviewed by the Central Review Body (CRB) or that candidates had to be placed on a roster. ��DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Under ST/AI/2010/4/Rev. 1, there is no minimum panel composition requirement for a temporary position of fewer than 12 months, no requirement to refer it to a Central Review Body or for candidates to be placed on a roster.

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

Humackic

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement