UNDT/2020/040, Krioutchkov
The Tribunal reviewed the documents submitted by the parties as well as the Respondent’s clarifications on the anonymity of the test and found that the Applicant’s allegation that the candidates’ responses were not anonymized was not supported by the evidence. The Applicant argued that the assessment panel was not properly constituted in accordance with sec. 1(c) of ST/AI/2010/3 as only two individuals, none of whom are female, graded the test results. The Tribunal acknowledged that the three-member composition of the assessment panel provided in ST/AI/2010/3 is not mandatory, as the administrative instruction uses the term “normally” and, moreover, no specific sanction is provided if the composition is not respected. The Tribunal thus noted that the composition of the panel resulting from the records was formally in compliance with the mentioned provision. The Tribunal further found that the review of the written test results was reasonable and appreciated no violation of ST/AI/2010/3. The Applicant complained about the loss of concrete chances for career development, due to limited or no mobility within the UN translators’ professional group, and notwithstanding his long-lasting placement on a roster of eligible candidates and the obligation for the Administration to reward staff members’ excellent performance. The Tribunal found that these claims were not relevant for the adjudication of the present case, where the Applicant challenged, and was entitled only to challenge, a specific administrative decision (which in the case was lawful) and not a general administrative practice (which is in any case consistent with the principle that the facts recalled by the Applicant do not create any expectancy or entitlement to promotion). In light of the entirety of the evidence and considering the parties’ arguments, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant’s candidacy was given fair and full consideration. Moreover, the Tribunal did not find that the Applicant had proved by clear and convincing evidence of there being any ulterior motive in his non-selection.
The Applicant, a Russian translator in the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (“ESCAP”), contests the decision not to select him for a position of Russian translator in the Division of Conference Management (“DCM”) in the United Nations Office at Geneva (“UNOG”).
The principle of regularity entails that if the Respondent is able “to even minimally show that [an applicant’s] candidature was given a full and fair consideration, then the presumption of law stands satisfied” thereafter the applicant “must show through clear and convincing evidence that [s/he] was denied a fair chance of promotion” to win the case (Lemonnier 2017-UNAT-762).