����AV

The Tribunal was unable to conclude that the presumption of regularity in the selection process had been rebutted by the Applicant. There was nothing to suggest that the Respondent was motivated by any improper factors in selecting a candidate other than the Applicant. The Applicant did not, even on a preponderance of evidence, establish that the selection process was not fair. The Tribunal could not conclude that the Applicant was subjected to any discrimination or that the selection exercise was tainted.

Granting an application for revision: As consistently held by the Appeals Tribunal, “the review procedure [of revision] is of a corrective nature and thus is not an opportunity for a party to reargue his or her case” (see Sanwidi 2013-UNAT-321, para. 8. Moreover, an application for revision of a judgment is only receivable if it fulfills the strict and exceptional criteria established under art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute and art. 29 of its Rules of Procedure, namely (see James 2016-UNAT-680, para. 13): “… Accordingly, an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if...

Receivability ratione materiae: The application is receivable ratione materiae if the applicant is contesting “an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment” (art. 2.1 of the Statute) and if the applicant previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation, where required (art. 8.1(c) of the Statute).

The claim the Applicant filed on 27 March 2013 was out of time and subject to the Secretary-General’s discretion excercisable “in exceptional circumstances” because she did not submit the claim within four months of knowledge of the injury as required by art. 12 of Appendix D. With respect to the existence of exceptional circumstances, the ABCC disregarded evidence and information provided by the Applicant regarding her medical condition which impeded her ability to direct her attention to the claim for service incurred injury. The ABCC did not consider these reasons, apportion appropriate...