Judgment No. 3130
1. The decision of 7 April 2010 as well as the decision of 2 April 2008 to approve the appointment of the successful candidate are set aside. The Organization must shield the successful candidate from any injury that may result from the setting aside of an appointment he accepted in good faith.
2. WHO shall pay the complainant 1,000 United States dollars in costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
"The complainant requests an award of 10,000 United States dollars for unreasonable delays in the internal appeal proceedings. The appeal before the Regional Board of Appeal lasted only nine months from the date of appeal [...] to the date of the decision by the Regional Director [...] to endorse the Board’s recommendation [...]. The complainant’s appeal before the [Headquarters Board of Appeal] lasted just over 13 months from the date of appeal [...] to the decision by the Director-General [...]. Considering that the two appeals took less than two years to complete, the complainant cannot be considered to have suffered from inordinate delays meriting an award of damages. This is especially true considering that the two tiered appeal process has provided him with greater protection of his rights as a staff member."
claim; decision; administrative delay; internal appeal; recommendation; reasonable time; executive head; compensation; date; refusal; right; material damages; official
complaint allowed; decision quashed; appointment; selection procedure
[C]andidates who apply for a post to be filled by competition, whatever their hopes of success may be, are entitled to have their applications considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair competition. An organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal will quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must “shield” the successful candidate from any injury (see for example Judgments 1990 and 2020 and the case law cited therein).
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1990, 2020
general principle; due process; patere legem