¹ú²úAV

SummaryThe Tribunal concluded that the selection process was procedurally flawed for the following reasons: a. the job opening did not identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of the technical skills during the selection process;b. the selection panel did not include an expert on Russian language and a non-voting member representing the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, which the Tribunal considered was necessary in accordance with ST/AI/1998/7;c. the selection panel did not assess the short-listed candidates through an assessment exercise (written test) to evaluate their substantive knowledge against the requirements for the Post;d. the scoring system used by the panel did not accurately reflect the candidates’ performance during the interview, which resulted in inaccurate ratings of satisfactory and outstanding;e. the selection decision was made before the mandatory review by the Central Review body and was based on a different note than the transmittal memo sent later to the Central Review body. It did not contain the reasons of the Acting Head of DGACM for the selection decision. The Tribunal was of the view that ST/AI/1998/7, as amended in May 2012, and ST/AI/2010/3 were both applicable to the selection exercise in this case and require a written test to be administered to any candidate applying for a language post. The Tribunal found that there were a number of flaws in the selection process relating to the assessment method used, the composition of the selection panel, the scoring system used during the interview, and the final selection decision. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s right to be fully and fairly considered for the Post was not respected. The Respondent was ordered to pay USD3,000 in moral damages.