¹ú²úAV

The Tribunal found that requiring candidates to such a post to type in Russian their answers to the written test was not unfair or unreasonable and noted that, in any event, this requirement was eventually lifted at the Applicant’s request. The fact that graders may have been able to identify his test because it was handwritten or the fact that the Applicant was advised that he was allowed to handwrite shortly before the written test deadline do not vitiate the test, as they arise from the Applicant’s desire to and result from the Administration’s efforts to accommodate his concerns. Also, the Tribunal noted that serious measures were taken to address the concerns expressed by the Applicant at various stages about the impartiality of different officials involved, and found that the selection process had been validly conducted. Rostered candidates: The staff selection system sets out different procedural options and no candidate is entitled to have the recruitment process conducted according to one or another of them. Candidates simply have the right to be fully and fairly considered. The inclusion of a staff member in the pre-screened roster does not create a right to be selected for a given post or within a certain timeframe. Likewise, when evaluation of candidates is undertaken, the status of roster member does not confer any preference or priority to the rostered candidates over the non-rostered ones. Requirement to type in a written test: It is not unfair or unreasonable to request candidates to a Russian language specialist position to type in Russian. It is irrelevant whether or not the standard working procedures for translators in the United Nations involve typing because a written test conditions do not need to replicate internal workflows. Where the same conditions are applied to all candidates and none of them is particularly disadvantaged, it is within the Administration’s discretion to require candidates to type. Measures to address concern on impartiality: Where the Administration took serious measures to address a candidate’s concerns on the impartiality of panel members, the exercise may be considered proper unless evidence shows that the panel acted with prejudice or ill-disposition against that candidate.