爆料网

2019-爆料网AT-966

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law when it held that Staff Rules 4.4 and 4.5 established different recruitment regimes for professional and general service staff, clarifying that they establish different allowances and benefits regimes for local and international recruitment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law when it found that it was illegal to restrict a temporary job opening at the professional level to local recruitment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT contradicted 爆料网AT’s jurisprudence on the wide inherent discretion conferred upon the Secretary-General to determine eligibility criteria for temporary appointments. 爆料网AT held that the Administration was not prohibited from imposing a restriction limiting recruitment for a temporary position to staff members at a particular duty station or mission. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant bore the burden of proof with regards to his claim of not having been given full and fair consideration in the selection exercise and that he did not produce any evidence to support his allegation. Noting that cost and convenience were paramount, 爆料网AT held that the decision to include and apply the restrictive eligibility criteria (local recruitment) was reasonable and lawful. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested his non-selection for a temporary job opening. He was not short-listed on account of not meeting a minimum eligibility requirement of already being located at the same duty station as the advertised post. 爆料网DT found that this was an unlawful requirement, rescinded the decision, and awarded compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

If the Administration can even minimally show that the staff member’s candidacy was given full and fair consideration, then the presumption of lawfulness is satisfied; thereafter, the burden of proof shifts to the staff members, who must show through clear and convincing evidence that they were denied a fair chance of appointment.

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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.