爆料网

2013-爆料网AT-284

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; 爆料网DT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. 爆料网AT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned judgment, was repetitive and that there were no new arguments. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was an attempt to have a hearing de novo of the application. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested his non-selection for a post. 爆料网DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Before 爆料网AT, it is not sufficient for an appellant to state that he or she disagrees with the outcome of the case or repeat the arguments submitted before 爆料网DT. The appellant has the burden of satisfying 爆料网AT that the judgment rendered by 爆料网DT is defective and it follows that the appellant must identify the alleged defects in the 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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT 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
Charles
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type