2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1054

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

On the Applicant��s claim that Ģ��ƵDT committed an error of procedure by not allowing him to submit an affidavit from his former supervisor, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT properly exercised its broad discretion under Article 18(1) of its Rules of Procedure in determining the admissibility as well as the evidentiary value and weight of the proffered affidavit. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s conclusions were consistent with the evidence. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof for demonstrating an error in the judgment such as to warrant its reversal. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select him for a job opening. Ģ��ƵDT found that he had been given full and fair consideration during the selection process. Ģ��ƵDT did not find evidence that the decision was manifestly wrong, arbitrary, or otherwise unreasonable, and concluded that the Applicant did not have a foreseeable and significant chance for selection. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application without merit.

Legal Principle(s)

The Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. Whether a non-selected candidate can meet his burden to show that he did not receive full and fair consideration for a job opening depends mainly on the evidence the Administration reviewed in making the selection decision, not evidence outside the record of which the Administration was not aware. The presumption of regularity accorded to the challenged administrative act is not rebutted by simply satisfying the balance of evidence standard, which is a lesser standard of proof than clear and convincing evidence. The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his case. An Appellant has the burden of satisfying Ģ��ƵAT that the judgment he or she seeks to challenge is defective; an appellant must identify the alleged defects in the impugned judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective.

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

Ross

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement