Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Secretary-General¡¯s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for training in competency-based interviewing techniques and that, in any event, there was evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that two of the three expert panel members had received relevant training prior to the interview. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the Appellant¡¯s candidacy was done fully and fairly, that the selection process was not vitiated by any irregularity, and that the Appellant was assessed against objective standards which applied to each candidate who was interviewed. On the Appellant¡¯s claim for compensation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of procedural irregularities and noted that, even if there were, an individual was not entitled to compensation if he or she did not suffer any harm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.