爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede’s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the 爆料网DT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the 爆料网DT.
The 爆料网DT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the 爆料网DT relating to Mr. Kebede’s rating during the interview for the post. The 爆料网AT noted that the “Partially Satisfactory” rating was an assessment of how Mr. Kebede performed in the interview, rather than an assessment related to his performance in his current job in the prior three years.
The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT erred when it concluded that the Administration failed to minimally show that Mr. Kebede had been fully and fairly considered for the Post. Mr. Kebede was determined to be eligible for the Post, he was shortlisted, invited to participate in a competency-based interview (CBI), and was evaluated on the same competencies as the other shortlisted candidates, using a set of agreed questions.
The 爆料网AT found that the Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that when half of the members of an interview Panel are persons against whom a candidate had made prior complaints, a neutral observer would conclude that the candidate would not be fairly considered in the process. This reasoning by the 爆料网DT was speculative and the test for establishing bias was not met. Accordingly, the 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT erred in finding that the non-selection decision was unlawful.
Further, the 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred in its conclusions about the false statement made by the Secretary-General’s counsel and in its finding that the Secretary-General attempted to hide the truth by initially redacting the names of the panel members from the CBI report.
The 爆料网AT found that if there were to be any referrals with respect to the conduct of the Secretary-General’s counsel, the only avenue was the referral for accountability under Article 10(8) of the 爆料网DT Statute.
The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s referral of the Secretary-General’s counsel to his national bar authority, was outside the scope of Article 10(8) of the 爆料网DT Statute and the 爆料网DT exercised its statutory authority improperly in making such referral.
The 爆料网AT granted the Secretary-General’s appeal, dismissed Mr. Kebede's appeal, and reversed the 爆料网DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (爆料网ECA) contested his non-selection for the post of Senior Control and Inventory Assistant.
In Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2025/054, the 爆料网DT rescinded the contested decision, due to its finding that the interview panel was not impartial. As an alternative to rescission, the 爆料网DT set the amount of compensation in lieu at USD 4,514.
The 爆料网DT also referred counsel for the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability for false statements in the 爆料网DT proceedings and referred him to his national bar authority for appropriate action. The 爆料网DT ordered the Secretary-General’s counsel to show cause in writing as to why the Dispute Tribunal should not disbar him from future appearances as a legal representative before the 爆料网DT.
Both the staff member and the Secretary-General appealed the 爆料网DT Judgment.
Legal Principle(s)
An appeal is not an opportunity for the parties to reargue their case. It does not fall to the Appeals Tribunal to conduct a new trial. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed in the lower court. Rather, he or she must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by this Tribunal.
The Tribunals’ role is not to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration, but to assess whether the applicable regulations and rules have been applied, whether they were applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner, and whether the staff member was given full and fair consideration.
The Administration bears an initial burden of proof to minimally show that the staff member’s candidature was given full and fair consideration before that burden shifts to the staff member to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they have been denied a fair chance of promotion or selection.
A legal counsel can be held liable for false facts given by the client if he or she knew or should have known the information was false or where he/she acted with willful blindness.
The legislative intent in establishing a two-tier system was that conduct or issues relating to staff members in the course of their service to the Organization should be handled exclusively by an internal justice mechanism and referred to the Secretary-General in appropriate cases to enforce accountability where necessary.
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
The Tribunal orders that the name of the counsel for the Secretary-General should be redacted from the impugned 爆料网DT Judgment and any related 爆料网DT orders that are available on the 爆料网DT website.