爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before 爆料网DT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying 爆料网AT that the 爆料网DT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. 爆料网AT held that Secretary-General’s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. 爆料网AT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for training in competency-based interviewing techniques and that, in any event, there was evidence before 爆料网DT that two of the three expert panel members had received relevant training prior to the interview. 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT’s decision that the Appellant’s candidacy was done fully and fairly, that the selection process was not vitiated by any irregularity, and that the Appellant was assessed against objective standards which applied to each candidate who was interviewed. On the Appellant’s claim for compensation, 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence of procedural irregularities and noted that, even if there were, an individual was not entitled to compensation if he or she did not suffer any harm. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
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)
Administrative issuances regulate matters of general application and directly concern the rights and obligations of staff and the Organisation. Rules, policies, or procedures intended for general application may only be established by duly promulgated Secretary-General’s bulletins and administrative issuances. 爆料网DT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto. A selection decision should be upheld when candidates have received full and fair consideration, when discrimination and bias are absent, when proper procedures have been followed, and when all relevant material has been taken into consideration. An individual is not entitled to compensation if he or she did not suffer any harm.