Judgment No. 4852
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the appointment, by lateral transfer, of another official to the position of Director, FAO Liaison Office in Geneva.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
appointment without competition; complaint dismissed
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]t cannot be assumed that one member of staff has an unfettered right to challenge the transfer of another member of staff (see Judgment 2670, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2670
Keywords
cause of action; transfer; appointment without competition
Considerations 12, 14-15
Extract:
What the complainant is arguing is, in substance, that in appointing Ms R.B. the Director-General was making a choice between her and the complainant (and perhaps others), and the failure to choose him was infected by, amongst other things, bias and prejudice towards him. The difficulty with this argument is that there is no direct evidence that such a choice was being made nor can an inference reasonably be drawn that it was.
[…]
As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 4690, consideration 13, when addressing the statement made by the Tribunal in Judgment 3669, consideration 12, and similar cases regarding the reliance on earlier evidence of bias and prejudice to prove the true character of alleged bias and prejudice in later conduct:
“There is probably no overarching principle which will determine the admissibility of evidence concerning earlier events in every case. At least in a case such as the present, the question of admissibility should be determined by reference to the specific facts of the case.”
In this case, the evidence of the complainant and the arguments based on it about prior bias and prejudice is not, in the circumstances, relevant to the legality of the decision to transfer Ms R.B. There was no choice being made of the type on which the complainant’s arguments rely. Accordingly, much of the argument of the complainant is not founded and lacks any admissible evidentiary underpinning.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3669, 4690
Keywords
evidence; burden of proof; bias; appointment without competition; prejudice
Consideration 17
Extract:
The complainant seeks moral damages for the delay in the determination of his internal appeal on the footing that the delay was inordinate. It is true that the appeal took a long period to resolve, nineteen months or thereabouts, and the impugned decision was taken five and a half months later. However no moral injury was identified, let alone proved as it must be (see Judgment 4595, consideration 11). Accordingly, moral damages in this respect will not be awarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4595
Keywords
moral injury; moral damages; delay in internal procedure
Consideration 18
Extract:
The complainant sought oral proceedings, but the Tribunal is satisfied it is in a position to make a fair and balanced decision having regard to the written material provided by the parties.
Keywords
oral proceedings
| 
