Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT was correct to find that it was not competent to consider the application as far as it concerned the decision not to award Ms Megerditchian a service contract since such contracts were awarded to non-staff members. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT erred in receiving the application in respect of a service contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT erred in its interpretation of the term priority consideration and that a promise of priority consideration in a job application did not by itself give rise to a legal right on the part of Ms Megerditchian. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT erred in finding that the Administration caused harm to Ms Megerditchian. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT allowed the appeal, rescinded the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT judgment and vacated the award of damages.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ms Megerditchian contested the non-renewal of her service contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT found partly for Ms Megerditchian and awarded compensation.
Legal Principle(s)
Priority consideration cannot be interpreted as a promise or guarantee to be appointed or to receive that for which one is considered in priority.