爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The 爆料网AT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.
The 爆料网AT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the 爆料网DT would have impacted the decision of the case.
The 爆料网AT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the 爆料网DT had not misrepresented or failed to give complete consideration to the facts.
The 爆料网AT was of the view that that the 爆料网DT had nor erred in determining that the procedure as laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules had been followed.
The 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网DT that the evidence on record contradicted the staff member’s claim of extraneous considerations. The 爆料网AT found that the Administration had relied on rational categories of considerations in taking the contested decision and each consideration was valid.
The 爆料网AT was of the view that the 爆料网DT had not erred in concluding that the staff member’s candidacy had been given full and fair consideration and that the applicable Regulations and Rules had been applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner.
The 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General had not manifestly abused the appeals process. The 爆料网AT pointed out that since no illegality had been found, there was no justification for awarding any compensation.
The 爆料网AT noted that in the absence of an appeal against the 爆料网DT’s order to anonymize the staff member’s identity, it followed the 爆料网AT Practice Direction and continued the anonymization.
The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member contested a decision not to select him for a fixed-term position, at the P-5 level, of Senior Human Rights Officer and Coordinator of the Secretariat of OHCHR’s International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela.
In Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2023/112, the 爆料网DT dismissed the application on the merits.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The Secretary-General has broad discretion in staff selection matters. In reviewing such decisions, it is the role of the 爆料网DT or the Appeals Tribunal 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 its decision for that of the Administration.
In reviewing an administrative decision regarding staff selection, the following factors are considered: (1) whether the procedure as laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules was followed; (2) whether the staff member was given full and fair consideration, and whether the applicable Regulations and Rules were applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner.
Section 9.3 of ST/AI/2010/3 establishes that the Administration is not bound by the recommendation of the Hiring Manager in the staff selection exercise. The Hiring Manager can make recommendations, but it is the Head of Entity that is ultimately accountable for the selection decision and also responsible for setting targets in terms of gender parity and geographical representation, among other goals.
The presumption of regularity stands satisfied if the Administration is able to minimally show that full and fair consideration was given to the candidate. The burden of proof then shifts to the staff member to show, through clear and convincing evidence, that he was denied a fair chance of selection or promotion.
An order for legal costs would rarely be made, and usually after the party has been fairly warned of that consequence if the abuse of process continues.