2021-罌厭弝ⅰAT-1134

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General＊s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because 罌厭弝ⅰAT did not detect any error in the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT＊s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly conveyed significant discontentment with the decision. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Mr. AlMousa＊s claim that the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT erred in not analysing his observations and supplementary evidence was to no avail. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT was fully cognisant of the entirety of the parties＊ comments and evidence in the record. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it was satisfied that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT considered all evidence relevant to the issues before it. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT＊s determination that the reason behind the contested decision was the 罌厭弝ⅰ Secretariat＊s request to maintain a 12% vacancy rate for the 罌厭弝ⅰ New York funded posts and an upcoming restructuring exercise was not unreasonable and that Mr. AlMousa did not convince 罌厭弝ⅰAT that there was any error of law or of fact in it. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Mr. AlMousa merely reiterated previous arguments in his appeal that had already been put before 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT and failed to convince it of any error in the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT Judgment. Having found that there was nothing in the record to suggest that the decision had been grounded on improper motives, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it would not interfere with the discretion bestowed upon 罌厭弝ⅰRWA to cancel a recruitment exercise. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT was correct in its finding that the procedural irregularity of delay in informing him about the cancellation of the recruitment process was not serious enough to vitiate the decision itself. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT was correct in law and in fact in deciding that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish that i) the decision to cancel the recruitment process for which he had been recommended was unlawful; and ii) the delay in notifying him of the cancellation of the recruitment caused him any harm. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal, and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr. Almousa contested the cancellation of a recruitment process, for which the interview panel had recommended Mr. AlMousa to be selected, following a competitive recruitment exercise. 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT dismissed Mr. Almousa＊s application.

Legal Principle(s)

It is not enough for an appellant to disagree with the findings of fact or the conclusions of law made by the trial court; rather, for an appeal to succeed, an appellant must convince 罌厭弝ⅰAT that the contested decision fulfils the objective criteria of its competence. It is not necessary for any court, whether a trial or appellate court, to address each and every claim made by a litigant, especially when a claim has no merit. When judging the validity of the Commissioner-General＊s exercise of discretion in administrative matters, the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT determines if the decision is legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate; the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT can consider whether relevant matters have been ignored and irrelevant matters considered, and also examine whether the decision is absurd or perverse. It is neither the role of the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT to consider the correctness of the choice made by the Commissioner-General amongst the various courses of action open to him nor to substitute its own decision for that of the Commissioner-General. Once the Administration has provided a reasonable motivation for the contested administrative decision, the staff member has the burden of proving that such extraneous facts played a role in the administrative decision.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on the merits; Cross-appeal dismissed on the merits

Outcome Extra Text

N/A

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 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT 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

Anis Basil AlMousa

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement