Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that UNDT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. UNAT 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 UNDT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s submission that UNDT 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. UNAT held that the Secretary-General was not under any obligation to disclose, nor would it have been appropriate for UNDT to draw any inference by reasons of the non-disclosure. UNAT held that UNDT 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, UNAT 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 UNDT 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, UNAT held there was no merit in these submissions. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s submission that UNDT 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. UNAT held that the Appellant merely repeated on appeal his arguments that did not succeed before UNDT. UNAT held that there were no errors of fact and law by UNDT in reaching its conclusions of allegations of bias. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that UNDT committed errors in procedures or on questions of facts and law such as to warrant a reversal of the judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.