�山����

Based on these very general principles, and in the lack of any further instruction or guidance—at least, as relevant to the present case—the Tribunal sets out the following basic minimum standards that must apply when administering a written test: a)Generally, while the Administration enjoys a broad discretion on how to administer a written test, it must nevertheless do so in a reasonable, just and transparent manner otherwise, a job candidacy would not receive full and fair consideration. b)As also stated in the Manual, any assessment must be undertaken on the basis of a “prescribed performance scale and response guide” and on a “predetermined passing grade”. Accordingly, before a written test is administered, a proper and reasonable grading methodology must be adopted and shared with the graders. c)If subsequent to the administration of the test, it becomes clear that mistakes were made in this methodology, or the written test turned out to be pointless in that no job candidates managed to pass it in accordance with the predetermined passing grade, then (a) a new written test must either be administered or (b) variations must be made to the assessment methodology that do not prejudice any specific job candidates (the reverse impact of “the no difference principle”). d)Records of the grading must be developed that clearly describe how each job candidate was assessed, which would allow a third party, such as the Tribunal, to review and verify that the entire process was handled in a proper manner e)To avoid the process being perceived as biased, the assessment of the written tests must be conducted on a confidential and anonymous manner where no person with influence over the selection process has access to the names of the job candidates while the grading is pending. In general, the Tribunal finds that the various mistakes that were made when administering the written test were so serious that the process did not comply with the basic standards as set out in the above. Referring to the principle of regularity as adopted by the Appeals Tribunal, the Respondent has therefore failed to demonstrate by a minimal showing that the Applicant’s candidacy for the Post received a full and fair consideration. The Tribunal, however, finds that while the process indeed appears to have been manipulated, the Applicant has not fully established that as a matter of fact, the decision-maker(s) were in bad faith. The present case has been pending since June 2016 and concerns a selection decision that was taken in late 2015 or early 2016. It therefore now makes no sense to rescind this decision, as the Applicant initially requested in his application under art. 10.5(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. Instead, at this point, the Tribunal finds that it would now only be reasonable to allow the Applicant to amend his submissions on relief as he has done in his closing statement and instead seek compensation for his harm. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant had a 50 percent chance of selection for the Post. As the Applicant served on a fixed-term appointment his income loss is to be determined as 50 percent of the difference between his salary at the P-5 level and the salary he would have obtained at the D-1 level for two years, since fixed-term appointments are regularly granted such a time period. While the Tribunal observes that the selection process was indeed extremely poorly executed, the Applicant has, however, not provided any evidence that he suffered any non-pecuniary harm from any such damages and, consequently, the Tribunal must reject the claim. Considering the findings made in the present Judgment, the Tribunal, however, sees no need to refer the present case to the Secretary-General “for possible action to enforce accountability” under art. 10.8 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.