2018-惇蹋厙AT-818

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. 惇蹋厙AT agreed with 惇蹋厙RWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. 惇蹋厙AT found that 惇蹋厙RWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, 惇蹋厙AT agreed with the finding of 惇蹋厙RWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency＊s decision to conduct a second selection exercise for the same post since he had decided and expressly stated that he would not participate in the second written test. 惇蹋厙AT held that since no illegality was found, there was no justification for the award of any compensation or moral damages. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙RWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decisions: 1) to manually include other candidates and overrule the computer＊s automatic short-list for the post of Deputy Head of Field Logistics Officer; 2) to conduct the first written test without participation of the hiring department; 3) to subsequently cancel the first written test; and 4) to conduct a second written test for the same post. 惇蹋厙RWA DT dismissed the application in its entirety.

Legal Principle(s)

A selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process.

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 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

Kawamleh

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement