����AV

The filling of the Post with the ultimately-successful candidate cannot be characterized as a “transfer”, be it lateral or not. The ultimately-successful candidate was therefore rather selected for the Post. Simply stated, the Post did not qualify as a lateral transfer. The Respndent employed the wrong procedure. The Applicants, although ranked behind the initially-successful candidate, were also “suitable” candidates for the Post. The Tribunal finds that the selection exercise for the initially-selected candidate was improper. The Applicants having been deemed by the Tribunal as suitable candidates for the Post, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent breached his obligation to select one of the two Applicants for the Post, since they were the only two remaining eligible roster candidates at the time. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has not made a minimal showing that the Applicants’ statutory rights were honoured in good faith in that the Administration gave fullest regard to them in the selection process for the Post. Further, the Respondent has not met his burden of showing that the Respondent’s discretion was exercised fairly and without extraneous considerations or improper motivation, particularly when appointing the wife of the Head of Service to the Post.

Accountability referral: under art. 10.8 of its Statute, the Tribunal refers this case to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for possible enforcement of accountability measures to determine whether the unfortunate possibility of nepotism may have occurred in this case. It is for the Secretary-General to determine which persons (both within and without the selection process) may have been involved in the matters discussed herein, and who may be held accountable.