2019-��AT-940

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that it was clear from the record that ��DT did not consider the whole of the evidence in arriving at its decisions and that its determination of the facts was unsustainable. ��AT held that ��DT based its finding of bias on selected extracts of a report from the Ethics Office which neither positively established bias nor explained how, if at all, the potential bias to which it referred was connected to the selection process. ��AT held that the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence required the case to be remanded to the ��DT for a rehearing de novo. ��AT vacated the ��DT judgment and remanded the matter to ��DT for full consideration of its merits by another Judge.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select him for a position on the basis that he was not fully and fairly considered. ��DT determined that the contested decision was unlawful for three main reasons: (1) the hiring manager erred in finding the selected candidate��s Master��s degree was related to and therefore relevant to any of the specifically mentioned areas and there was no evidence that she had a first-level university degree which could have replaced the Master��s degree requirement, together with work experience; (2) the hiring manager erred in the screening by finding that the selected candidate exceeded the requirement of working experience by introducing an additional criterion of field experience; and (3) the hiring manager was not impartial. ��DT granted the application and ordered rescission of the impugned decision.

Legal Principle(s)

A determination of the facts requires a full and proper examination of the evidence.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Wilson

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement