爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that the Organisation correctly excluded the Appellant from the recruitment process for not meeting the minimum education requirement, as he had not entered his educational credential accurately. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had had access to the Inspira Applicant’s Manual and World Higher Education Database, which was embedded into Inspira. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s argument that 爆料网DT failed to implement the 爆料网AT judgment to carry out additional fact-finding on the issue of whether Inspira reflected the variety of the educational systems of all Member States equally in 2016 was without merit. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s argument that 爆料网DT failed to address the central issue of Inspira's adaptability to the Russian education system was without merit. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant’s application. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment (爆料网DT/2019/185).
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant appealed his non-selection for a position. In 爆料网DT/2018/104 (first 爆料网DT judgment), 爆料网DT found that the Applicant’s job application had been erroneously screened out of the recruitment process and that that was unlawful. The matter was appealed to 爆料网AT and remanded to 爆料网DT for further fact-finding. On remand, in 爆料网DT/2019/185 (second 爆料网DT judgment), 爆料网DT concluded that the contested decision of the Administration not to consider the Applicant’s candidacy was lawful on the basis that the Applicant had incorrectly entered his education level as below the minimum educational requirement (first-level university degree), which meant that he was automatically screened out of the process. 爆料网DT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
The Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. In reviewing such decisions, it is the role of 爆料网DT and 爆料网AT to assess whether the applicable regulations and rules have been applied and whether they were applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner. The Tribunals’ role is not to substitute their decision for that of the Administration. Compensation cannot be awarded when no illegality has been established; it cannot be granted when there is no breach of the staff member’s rights or administrative wrongdoing in need of repair.