Ãå±±½ûµØ

Joining of a party: Since the Applicants requested the rescission to select the successful candidate, the latter had a legitimate interest in the outcome of the proceedings. It is therefore appropriate to join the selected candidate as a party to the proceedings under art. 11 of the Rules of Procedure. Information upon invitation to interview: The Administration shall inform candidates of the names of the panel members upon invitation to a competency-based interview. The purpose of this rule is to allow them to raise potential conflicts of interest or other anomalies, hence giving the Administration the possibility to change one or more panel members. Candidates must also be informed of the rating system to be used in their interview evaluations. While the Administration is bound to follow its own rules, only a breach that has an impact on the outcome of the selection procedure for the Applicant may entail the rescission of the selection decision. Qualifications assessment: Given that it is not for the Tribunal to substitute its own judgment of the candidates to that of the Administration, its control will be limited to factual errors and manifestly unreasonable conclusions. Changes in evaluations: To be valid, any modification made to the candidates’ ratings as agreed by the panel must be submitted to all panel members and approved by them. Required qualifications: The Administration has a large discretionary power in defining the qualifications required for a specific post. However, he must apply the stipulated criteria consistently to all candidates. In determining the qualifications required for a given post, the vacancy announcement prevails over internal guidelines. Proposal of one candidate amongst those endorsements by CRB: Para. 2.1.12 of the Manual for the Hiring Manager on the Staff Selection System (Inspira) provides that, after the CRB has fulfilled its task, the hiring manager recommends one of the CRB endorsed candidates for selection to the head of department or office, and supports such recommendation by a record. Although the Manual is not a legally binding set of rules, this paragraph is to be applied, inasmuch as it is not contradictory with ST/AI/2010/3. Documented record to be transmitted to decision-maker for final selection: Sec. 9.3 of instruction administrative ST/AI/2010/3. In order to put the head of department or office in a position to make an informed decision under sec. 9.3 of ST/AI/2012/3, s/he must be provided with a record reflecting the qualifications of all candidates. Gender Equality Measures: Priority consideration of female candidates, as prescribed by sec. 1.8(a) of ST/AI/1999/9, should not be construed as a promise or guarantee of selection. It applies only to candidates having « substantially equal » or superior qualifications. In determining whether a candidate’s qualifications are substantially equal the entire assessment should be taken into account, not only her global rating. Sec. 1.8(d) of ST/AI/1999/9 requires that a written analysis be submitted whenever a male candidate is recommended for selection when there is a female candidate who meets the qualifications required for the post. Within the staff selection system currently in place, this requirement makes sense only if such written analysis is submitted at the stage where the hiring officer recommends a particular candidate among those recommended to the head of department or office immediately before the final selection decision. Alternative compensation: The compensation to be paid as an alternative to effective rescission of a non-promotion decision corresponds to the salary difference since the date of implementation of the decision and the date at which the staff member could potentially be promoted, modulated according to the chances of selection he or she had in the challenged selection procedure. The period to be taken into account for this purpose, except in very compelling cases, should not exceed two years (Hastings 2011-UNAT-109).