±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Administration had shown that Mr. Mirella¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration which satisfies the presumption of regularity, and that Mr. Mirella has not proven through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reviewed Mr. Mirella¡¯s contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that his exclusion from the shortlist was in compliance with Section 7.4 of ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system). Specifically, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT evaluated Mr. Mirella¡¯s argument that the Hiring Manager erroneously found that he did not meet the...

Following the recusal of his FRO from the Panel, there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would have had a better chance had his FRO been present, nor that his (the FRO¡¯s) presence in the other CBIs gave them a better chance. Even if the CBI panel had remained constant and identical, with the inclusion of the FRO, the record before the Tribunal demonstrates that the selected candidate was superior in her candidature. The administration of a written test is not mandatory pursuant to the Staff Selection AI. The onus was on the Applicant to prove the alleged bias. Ill-will is not a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the undisputed breach of confidentiality in the selection process provided rational grounds for the cancellation decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that the Appellant had access to information about his test score and that he was perhaps seeking to influence the decision through the hiring manager, rendered the selection exercise problematic and unsatisfactory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the perception was unavoidably created that the Appellant was inappropriately favoured with access to information about a decision concerning his interests and in respect of which he enjoyed no authority...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment. In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that the Administration was not legally allowed to consider seniority or career advancement in the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was entirely proper to make a choice between two recommended candidates based partly on their respective seniority and time already served at a particular grade. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also erred in essentially reversing the burden of proof by requiring the Secretary-General to show that the factors considered were explicitly provided for in the legal framework rather...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have only received her application against the selection decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was defective in that the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, however, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s allegation that the case management of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was flawed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the re...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was overall lawful and did not violate her rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was not deprived of any significant chance of being promoted because there were other candidates ranked higher than her. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment regarding the merits of the administrative decision that would warrant ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s intervention. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that she was not properly...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General on the compensation awarded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the cross-appeal by Ms Antaki, regarding ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the decision not to appoint her was valid and lawful, in a separate judgment (judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-096). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, despite the shortcomings in the process, the decision not to appoint Ms Antaki was both valid and lawful, which should have precluded ±¬ÁÏÍøDT from awarding any compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in awarding compensation in the absence of any procedural errors in the selection process, or a breach of legal rights...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a ¡°specialist¡± post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that neither ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor ±¬ÁÏÍøAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the ¡°case by case¡± consideration to ¡°specialist¡± staff members during promotion sessions to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Bofill was not promoted as a result of the fact that the other candidates had scored higher than she had and she would not have been promoted even if the other candidates had not been promoted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the procedural irregularity had no impact on her non-promotion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the direct effect of an irregularity will only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance of promotion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should neither have rescinded the...