Ãå±±½ûµØ

The UNAT considered the central tenet of the staff member’s case, which was that he held the necessary academic qualifications for the role, but that the selected candidate did not.  The UNAT concluded that the educational specifications in the job vacancy announcement were a minimum threshold, but not the determining factor in the selection.  The UNAT held that both the staff member and the selected candidate met the threshold academic qualifications, even though they obtained them by different means.  The UNAT rejected the claim that the ITLOS should not have taken into account that the selected candidate passed a language proficiency exam in two languages, rather than just one language as the staff member had.  

The UNAT also considered whether the staff member had been adequately compensated for the due process breaches identified by the ITLOS JAB, and concluded that the errors were not so grave, and even without them, it was probable that the ITLOS would have made the same appointment decision.  The UNAT also held that the ITLOS JAB did not err in finding that the staff member had failed to substantiate his assertions of unfairness and bias by the Registrar of the ITLOS.  The UNAT also rejected several of the staff member’s other claims, including that his length of service at the ITLOS was not weighed appropriately.  

The UNAT denied the staff member’s requests for increased compensation and costs.

The UNAT affirmed the decision of the ITLOS JAB and dismissed the appeal.