Judgment No. 3380
Decision
1. WHO shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 1,000 United States dollars.
2. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges his non-selection for a post following a competition and alleges perpetual administrative bias towards him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; selection procedure
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he decision to abolish the post [...] was based on [an] earlier decision [...]. The latter decision was unrelated to the reassignment of the successful candidate or to any aspect of his decision to set aside the selection decision. Accordingly, it is beyond the scope of the present matter and is irreceivable."
Keywords
unrelated claim
Consideration 9
Extract:
"It is well settled that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias. Moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal (see Judgment 2472, under 9). It is also recognized that bias is often concealed and that direct evidence to support the allegation may not be available. In these cases, proof may rest on inferences drawn from the circumstances. However, reasonable inferences can only be drawn from known facts and cannot be based on suspicion or unsupported allegations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472
Keywords
burden of proof; bias; personal prejudice
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[O]n the grounds of confidentiality, the Administration [...] refused to give [...] the complainant [copies of certain documents he had requested]. Nonetheless, the documents were submitted to the RBA. [O]ne of the documents was clearly material and, in fact, was, later in the appeal process, relied on by the HBA in its finding that the replacement of the interested party on the Selection Committee was due to conflict of interest and not bias. The failure to disclose this document constitutes a breach of procedural fairness."
Keywords
confidential evidence
| 
