2018-Ģ��ƵAT-836

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT found no reason to differ from Ģ��ƵDT��s conclusion. Ģ��ƵAT found that the applicable procedural requirements were followed, and the evidence did not supersede the presumption of regularity of the administrative decision. Ģ��ƵAT further noted that the Appellant was afforded full and fair consideration and that he failed to establish any bias by the members of the panel. Ģ��ƵAT also held that the Appellant forewent the required procedures for filing complaints of discrimination and failed to provide evidence that he was the target of the restructuring exercise or that it was done for extraneous reasons. Moreover, Ģ��ƵAT held that, in failing to participate in the necessary recruitment procedures, the Appellant is estopped from contesting the selection outcome. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ģ��ƵDT��s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to not select him for a post. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant��s candidature received full and fair consideration. Ģ��ƵDT noted that the Administration gave a satisfactory reason for not replacing the panel members, upon the Applicant��s request, and that the Applicant was provided with a procedural safeguard in the event he wished to contest the selection process. Ģ��ƵDT found that the presumption of regularity of the decision not to select the Applicant prevailed and rejected the application in its entirety.

Legal Principle(s)

Evidence must be produced to support allegations of possible misconduct. In the absence of such evidence, the allegations will be disregarded for the intended purposes.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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

Loeber

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement