�山����

The Tribunal ruled that the Applicant, as a 15-day candidate, had been given priority consideration, in compliance with section 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3. It concluded that the Applicant had been considered first than 30-day candidates and found unsuitable for the post before any meaningful consideration of 30-day candidates took place. Priority consideration as per section 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3: This provision, as consistently interpreted by the Dispute and the Appeals Tribunals, requires that 15-day and 30-day candidates be considered separately; 15-day candidates must be considered first and, if one of them is found suitable, he or she must be selected. Only if no suitable 15-day candidate is identified can the 30-day mark candidates be considered. Meaning of “consideration” for the purpose of ST/AI/2006/3: “Consideration” of a candidate, for the purpose of ST/AI/2006/3, means assessing his or her qualifications and skills against the requirements and competencies set out in the relevant vacancy announcement with a view to determining his or her suitability to successfully perform the functions of the post. Consideration of 30-day candidates cannot be said to have started on the date the candidates released at the 30-day mark were merely convened for a written test. The minimal review of personal history profiles required to this end may not be equated to “consideration” within the meaning of ST/AI/2006/3. Indeed, any meaningful consideration cannot begin until the relevant assessment tools—such as a written test and an interview—have been administered to the candidates. Condition to receive “priority consideration” under section 7.1 of ST/AS/2006/3: 15-day candidates were only entitled to be granted precedence under ST/AI/2006/3 provided that they were “suitable” for the position. A 15-day mark candidate who, after consideration for a position, appears not to be fit to undertake the duties of the post may not claim any further right to priority consideration. Scope of the Tribunal’s review power regarding selection decisions: As a matter of principle, it is for the Organization to determine the suitability of each candidate and the Tribunal should not substitute its assessment thereon for that of the Secretary-General. Only in rare circumstances, such as failure to give fair consideration to a candidate, discrimination or bias, departure from proper procedures and failure to consider relevant material, may the Tribunal rescind a decision.