Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr James¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Mr James was not eligible for the P-3 position both because he did not take the required examination and because of the lack of required qualifications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed Mr James¡¯ appeal that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not awarding him compensation for loss of opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the compensation was not requested, there was no evidence of damage or injuries, and Mr James acknowledged on appeal that he only claimed monetary loss as his real injury. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the applicable law governing compensation precludes such an award. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr James¡¯ appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that he was ineligible for the P-3 position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr James contested his non-appointment to a P-3 position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that he could not be recruited from his general service role to the professional level without undergoing the required examination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded a three-month salary as compensation for the distress caused by the Organisation.
Legal Principle(s)
An individual may not be awarded compensation for the loss of an opportunity if they were not eligible for the said opportunity.