Judgment No. 4100
1. WHO shall pay the complainant moral damages of 1,000 United States dollars.
2. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a position for which he had applied.
complaint allowed; competition; selection procedure
The Tribunal’s case law establishes that a known fact arising from an earlier administrative decision or a failure to act on the part of the Administration may be relied on in a subsequent proceeding even though the earlier decision or failure to act was not challenged in a timely manner (see Judgments 1982, under 7, and 3380, under 8). Thus, the complainant may refer to the cancellation of the earlier selection process in the present complaint, for example, as part of the chronology leading up to this case.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1982, 3380
time bar; late appeal
[A] staff member has no entitlement or right to be selected for a contested post.
appointment; selection procedure
[I]t is well settled that the Tribunal “may not replace the Organisation’s assessment of the applicants with its own and order any particular appointment” (Judgment 1595, under 4).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595
competence of tribunal; appointment; selection procedure
It is well settled in the case law that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and in a manner consistent with the duty of care an international organization owes to its staff members (see Judgments 3160, under 16, and 3582, under 3). Although it appears that the Administration took some steps to deal with an unusually large volume of work, the time taken to finalize the HBA report was nonetheless unreasonable. In Judgment 3160, under 17, the Tribunal held:
“The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. Delay in an internal appeal concerning a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant would be likely to be less injurious to the appellant than delay in an appeal concerning an issue of fundamental importance and seriousness in its impact on the appellant.”
(See also Judgment 4031, under 8.)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 3582, 4031
moral injury; duty of care; delay in internal procedure