爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. 爆料网AT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however 爆料网AT 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 爆料网AT did not detect any error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, 爆料网AT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly conveyed significant discontentment with the decision. 爆料网AT held that Mr. AlMousa’s claim that the 爆料网RWA DT erred in not analysing his observations and supplementary evidence was to no avail. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT was fully cognisant of the entirety of the parties’ comments and evidence in the record. 爆料网AT held that it was satisfied that 爆料网RWA DT considered all evidence relevant to the issues before it. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT’s determination that the reason behind the contested decision was the 爆料网 Secretariat’s request to maintain a 12% vacancy rate for the 爆料网 New York funded posts and an upcoming restructuring exercise was not unreasonable and that Mr. AlMousa did not convince 爆料网AT that there was any error of law or of fact in it. 爆料网AT held that Mr. AlMousa merely reiterated previous arguments in his appeal that had already been put before 爆料网RWA DT and failed to convince it of any error in the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment. Having found that there was nothing in the record to suggest that the decision had been grounded on improper motives, 爆料网AT held that it would not interfere with the discretion bestowed upon 爆料网RWA to cancel a recruitment exercise. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA 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. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA 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. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal, and affirmed the 爆料网RWA 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. 爆料网RWA 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 爆料网AT 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 爆料网RWA DT determines if the decision is legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate; the 爆料网RWA 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 爆料网RWA 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
Outcome Extra Text
N/A