2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1658, Bao Jin
Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a rejet¨¦ l¡¯argument de M. Jin selon lequel le Tribunal administratif des Nations Unies (Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµTD) avait commis une erreur en concluant ¨¤ l¡¯absence de pr¨¦judice, dans la mesure o¨´, selon ses calculs, la d¨¦cision d¡¯attribuer la note maximale ¨¤ la
partie 2 de chaque candidat avait conduit ¨¤ un groupe de candidats admis ¨¤ l¡¯entretien plus large, ce qui lui avait port¨¦ pr¨¦judice. Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que cet argument relevait de la sp¨¦culation, qu¡¯il reposait sur un sc¨¦nario hypoth¨¦tique et qu¡¯il ne
r¨¦pondait pas ¨¤ la charge de la preuve incombant ¨¤ M. Jin, qui devait...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1658, Bao Jin
The Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Jin¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT erred in finding no prejudice since, by his calculations, the decision to score Part 2 perfectly for each candidate resulted in a larger interview pool which was disadvantageous to him. The Appeals Tribunal found that this argument was speculative, predicated on one hypothetical counterfactual outcome, and failed to meet Mr. Jin¡¯s burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection.
The Appeals Tribunal found that the circumstances in Mr. Jin¡¯s case were fundamentally and...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1633, Marie Bourrel-McKinnon
L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯une partie l¨¦s¨¦e par le rejet d¡¯une mesure provisoire peut, et doit g¨¦n¨¦ralement, attendre que l¡¯affaire soit
d¨¦finitivement tranch¨¦e avant d¡¯interjeter appel.
L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT a jug¨¦ qu¡¯une d¨¦cision relative ¨¤ une mesure provisoire peut faire l¡¯objet d¡¯un r¨¦examen s¡¯il est d¨¦montr¨¦ que le tribunal de premi¨¨re instance, ¨¤ savoir le JAB, a outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence.
L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT a not¨¦ que le JAB est express¨¦ment habilit¨¦ par le r¨¨glement du personnel de l¡¯ISA ¨¤ d¨¦cider si la suspension d¡¯une mesure administrative est appropri¨¦e, ce qui rel¨¨ve de sa comp¨¦tence et de sa juridiction.
L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT a...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1633, Marie Bourrel-McKinnon
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that a party aggrieved by denial of interim relief can and generally must wait until the matter is finally resolved before filing an appeal.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that a decision regarding interim relief may be reviewable if it can be shown that the first instance tribunal, the JAB, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the JAB is specifically empowered by the ISA Staff Rules to decide whether suspension of an administrative action is appropriate, which is within its competence and jurisdiction.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that there was no basis for its intervention in the...