2010-Ģ��ƵAT-044

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General��s answer. Ģ��ƵAT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant��s contention about the quantum of compensation, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its appreciation of the case. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT was correct in determining the measure of compensation under Article 10. 5(a) of its statute and that the amount set was reasonable. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to promote him to the P-5 level. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Appointments, Posting and Promotions Board��s (APPB) consideration of gender parity was not in accordance with the Procedural Guidelines or the Methodological Approach. Ģ��ƵDT found that the APPB did not follow the order established under the rules for the application of criteria when listing staff to be recommended for promotion. Ģ��ƵDT concluded that the irregularity vitiated the entire promotion process and the decision to deny the Applicant a promotion. Ģ��ƵDT ordered the rescission of the decision not to promote the Applicant to the P-5 level. Ģ��ƵDT also set an amount of compensation, 8,000 Swiss Francs plus interest, that the Secretary-General might elect to pay as an alternative to rescission.

Legal Principle(s)

Compensation must be set by Ģ��ƵDT following a principled approach and on a case-by-case basis. In cases such as this, Ģ��ƵDT should be guided by two elements. The first element is the nature of the irregularity that led to the rescission of the contested administrative decision. The second element is the chance that the staff member would have been recommended for promotion had the correct procedure been followed.

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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.

Applicants/Appellants

Solanki

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement