爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s argument that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of 爆料网DT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s submission that 爆料网DT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from the Secretary-General’s failure to disclose the membership of the CRB and his refusal to produce documents. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General was not under any obligation to disclose, nor would it have been appropriate for 爆料网DT to draw any inference by reasons of the non-disclosure. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit any errors of procedure to warrant a reversal of the judgment. With regard to the Appellant’s arguments that there were errors of fact and law relating to the manner in which the required competencies for the post were described and assessed by the Panel, 爆料网AT rejected these arguments? as they were not submitted before the court of first instance, and could not be raised for the first time on appeal. On the Appellant’s argument that 爆料网DT erred in fact and in law when it found that the Respondent had satisfied the requirement of making a minimum showing of regularity and that the selection process had complied with the applicable procedures, 爆料网AT held there was no merit in these submissions. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s submission that 爆料网DT erred on a question of fact and law in not finding that the CRB had failed in its obligation to place his candidacy on the roster, as the Appellant was not endorsed as a candidate by the CRB and thus he was not eligible to be placed on the roster. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant merely repeated on appeal his arguments that did not succeed before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that there were no errors of fact and law by 爆料网DT in reaching its conclusions of allegations of bias. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to establish that 爆料网DT committed errors in procedures or on questions of facts and law such as to warrant a reversal of the judgment. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to provide information of the process leading to and supporting the administrative decision not to include him on a roster and not to disclose the member of a Central Review Body (CRB). 爆料网DT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
爆料网DT has broad discretion in its case management. 爆料网DT has a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence and the weight to be attached thereto. The presumption of regularity is the rebuttable presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. The appellant has the burden of satisfying 爆料网AT that the judgment rendered by 爆料网DT is defective; the appellant must identify the alleged defects and state the grounds relied upon. It is insufficient for an appellant to state the he or she disagrees with the outcome of the case or repeat the arguments submitted before 爆料网DT. An appellant must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by 爆料网AT.