51�Թ�

In the present case, the decisions to decline access to documentation were not substantive administrative decisions. Access to documents for the purposes of the Applicant’s claim before the Tribunal is an evidentiary matter resolved by orders of the Tribunal. The decision not to include the Applicant in the professional roster following competency based interviews for the Fukuoka post was lawful as it was taken after a selection process conducted in accordance with the procedures required by ST/AI/2010/3. There is a presumption of regularity in the staff selection processes “that official acts have been regularly performed”. The Respondent is required to make a minimal showing of regularity and it is for the Applicant to rebut that presumption. The Applicant’s submission that there is a presumption of irregularity is a mistaken statement of the applicable law. The Tribunal finds that the other claims made by the Applicant concerning the refusal of disclosure of documents were misconceived. Such claims are generally not substantive administrative decisions that can be reviewed by the Tribunal pursuant to article 2.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute. In the present case they are ancillary matters considered by the Tribunal in the context of the applicant substantive claim which contests an administrative decision. Usually they may be resolved by preliminary rulings about disclosure before the substantive case is determined and/or in the course of the judgment.