51�Թ�

Was the Applicant’s candidature given full and fair consideration?; As an international multilateral organization with Member States having different descriptions in respect of academic qualifications, the Organization has a contractual obligation and a duty of care and due diligence towards its staff members to ensure that their candidatures are fairly and properly considered. The use of Anglo-Saxon terms to the apparent exclusion of the terminology used by other educational systems is not consistent with the proper exercise of that duty of care, or of the fair consideration of the Applicant’s candidature.; The Respondent has not proffered an explanation as to why the same Inspira system had previously accepted the Applicant’s academic qualifications as meeting the same minimum educational requirements, while it was rejected as not meeting them for the purpose of his application to JO 63349.; The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant’s candidature was not afforded full and fair consideration and that, as a result, the Applicant’s exclusion from the recruitment process for the position of Russian Reviser/Self-Revising Translator-Vienna was unlawful.; Is the Applicant entitled to any remedy?; Having found that the Applicant’s candidature for JO 63349 was unlawfully excluded, the Tribunal rescinded the contested decision.; The Tribunal noted that the Applicant, as a rostered candidate, would have been released to the hiring manager had his candidature not been unlawfully screened out. Consequently, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant would have had a 25% chance of selection for JO 63349. The Tribunal found it appropriate to direct the Respondent to pay the Applicant 25% of the difference in net base salary, over a period of two years, between the Applicant’s net base salary at his grade and step at the time of the contested decision and the net base salary that the Applicant would have received had he been selected to the advertised P-4 position.; With respect to the Applicant’s claim for moral damages related to alleged discrimination, humiliation, frustration, mental anguish and moral suffering, the Tribunal recalled the standard of proof required by the Appeals Tribunal (cf. Kallon 2017-UNAT-742 and Auda 2017-UNAT-787) and observed that the Applicant did not submit or suggest any supporting evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the burden of proof had not been met did not grant damages under art. 10.5(b) of its Statute.