2013-UNAT-284

2013-UNAT-284, Charles

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT 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; UNDT 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. UNAT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned judgment, was repetitive and that there were no new arguments. UNAT held that the appeal was an attempt to have a hearing de novo of the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested his non-selection for a post. UNDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Before UNAT, 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 UNDT. The appellant has the burden of satisfying UNAT that the judgment rendered by UNDT 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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Charles

Entity

Case Number(s)

2012-310

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry :

New York

Date of Judgement