2013-Ģ��ƵAT-340

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the required grounds. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT properly discharged its duty to examine whether the procedure laid down in the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules had been followed and whether the Appellant had been given fair and adequate consideration. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT correctly placed upon the Appellant the onus of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of being promoted. Ģ��ƵAT agreed with Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s observation that it was not enough for the Appellant to merely allege favouritism and yet produce no cogent evidence, arguments, or submissions in support thereof. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT was entitled to decide on the evidence before it that there was no procedural impropriety, favouritism or any other kind of bias or prejudice that tainted the selection process and the decision to appoint the successful candidate. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ģ��ƵRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision and that accordingly, there was no merit in the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested his non-selection for a post. Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed his application, concluding that there was no procedural impropriety, favouritism or any other kind of bias or prejudice that tainted the selection process and the decision to appoint the successful candidate.

Legal Principle(s)

The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and is thus not an opportunity for a party to reargue his or her case. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed in the lower court; rather, he or she must demonstrate that the court below committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ģ��ƵAT.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Dannan

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement