Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal found that the intervention of the head of department in the appointment of the selection panel constituted a procedural flaw in the selection process. Since the Applicant had not requested the rescission of the contested decision but only compensation, the Tribunal examined whether such irregularity had caused any damage to the Applicant. It found that the latter, who had been proposed for the post, had failed to establish any causal link between the procedural flaw in the selection process and his non-selection. Selection panel: Although ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 is silent on the matter of selection panels, it appears from the provisions of the administrative instruction that the drafter’s intention was to make a clear distinction between the head of department, responsible for making the selection decision, and the programme manager who is responsible for conducting the selection process. The separation between the functions of the head of department and those of the programme manager was an essential component of the selection system aimed at avoiding that the same person evaluate and select the candidates. When the programme manager has already appointed a selection panel, the head of department cannot intervene without breaching the principle of the separation of functions as reflected in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1. Compensation: Compensation may not be awarded for a procedural flaw that did not cause any damage to the applicant. Outcome: Application rejected on the merits