±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first explained that this is a case where the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have held a hearing to determine the states of mind of those persons who decided that the Staff Member should not have been placed on the roster. The Tribunal defined bias as follows: (paras. 29 - 32) "29. Bias is an element of natural justice which examines not only the mind of the decision?maker subjectively, but the manifestation of the process of decision-making examined objectively. Put another way, a decision is not only biased if made by a decision?maker deliberately intending to favour or disadvantage the subject of it for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and found the background of the prior retaliation against the Staff Member affects the principle of the presumption of regularity. In light of the circumstances of this particular case, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found the Administration bore the obligation to justify the lawfulness of its decision to cancel the Job Opening. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT thus found the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by not requiring the Administration to establish its justification in law for the cancellation of the Job Opening. The administrative decision to cancel the Job Opening was rescinded, and the Tribunal set in lieu compensation at two years¡¯ net base...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found that the alignment policy constituted an organisational measure aimed at simplifying administrative procedures in relation to staff appointments at ±¬ÁÏÍøODC. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that, as a result of the Secretary-General¡¯s broad discretion in relation to decisions on internal management, the issuance of the policy by a ¡°Message of the Day¡± was subject to limited review by the Tribunal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the application of the alignment policy to his case was motivated by improper motives and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA in tranche 2 list. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it found that it was illegal to restrict a temporary job opening at the professional level to local recruitment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT contradicted ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence on the wide inherent discretion conferred upon the Secretary-General...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

Starting with the presumption that official acts are regularly performed, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the Administration acted in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Rules when it invited three roster candidates for an informal interview and made a final selection from the roster. Given the presumption of regularity was satisfied, the burden of proof shifted on the staff member who must demonstrate that he was not given fair and adequate consideration. This, the staff member failed to do. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the staff member can only challenge a specific administrative decision, and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s interpretation of the totality of the evidence on the record was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found that Mr Russo-Got was Candidate A for the P-3 test and Candidate F for the P-4 test and that ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS had submitted contemporaneous documentation showing that he was not recommended because he had failed the written assessment for the two tests. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly reviewed the contested decisions in accordance with the applicable law.