Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from the Secretary-General¡¯s failure to disclose the membership of the CRB and his refusal to produce documents. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General was not under any obligation to disclose, nor would it have been appropriate for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to draw any inference by reasons of the non-disclosure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors of procedure to warrant a reversal of the judgment. With regard to the Appellant¡¯s arguments that there were errors of fact and law relating to the manner in which the required competencies for the post were described and assessed by the Panel, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected these arguments? as they were not submitted before the court of first instance, and could not be raised for the first time on appeal. On the Appellant¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact and in law when it found that the Respondent had satisfied the requirement of making a minimum showing of regularity and that the selection process had complied with the applicable procedures, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no merit in these submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact and law in not finding that the CRB had failed in its obligation to place his candidacy on the roster, as the Appellant was not endorsed as a candidate by the CRB and thus he was not eligible to be placed on the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely repeated on appeal his arguments that did not succeed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no errors of fact and law by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in reaching its conclusions of allegations of bias. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed errors in procedures or on questions of facts and law such as to warrant a reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to provide information of the process leading to and supporting the administrative decision not to include him on a roster and not to disclose the member of a Central Review Body (CRB). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has broad discretion in its case management. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence and the weight to be attached thereto. The presumption of regularity is the rebuttable presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. The appellant has the burden of satisfying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that the judgment rendered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is defective; the appellant must identify the alleged defects and state the grounds relied upon. It is insufficient for an appellant to state the he or she disagrees with the outcome of the case or repeat the arguments submitted before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. An appellant must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.