2012-Ģ��ƵAT-205

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Secretary-General appealed and Mr Marsh filed a cross-appeal, challenging the legality of the interview process and the compensation award. With respect to the first issue, Ģ��ƵAT found that the records showed a proper and professional proceeding during the interviews and the report of its outcome was based on evaluations objectively motivated, and Mr Marsh was accorded the objective consideration and equal treatment to which all candidates are entitled. With respect to the second issue, Ģ��ƵAT noted that not every violation of due process will necessarily lead to an award of compensation. Ģ��ƵAT found, however, that in this case the lost chance of being selected and the loss of a better chance of being recommended or included in the roster had material and financial consequences and also deprived Mr Marsh of an opportunity to improve his status within the Organisation. Ģ��ƵAT held that the compensation of 2,500 Euros set by Ģ��ƵDT for material damage did not constitute an error in fact or law. Ģ��ƵAT also held it was not erroneous for Ģ��ƵDT to award a lump sum of 2,500 Euros for moral damage since the particular circumstances of the case supported the conclusion that Mr Marsh in fact was morally prejudiced by the irregularity of the selection process and its outcome. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr. Marsh challenged the administrative decision not to promote him to a P-4 position. Ģ��ƵDT determined that there was no flaw in the selection process with regard to the composition of the Interview Panel, but that it was unlawful to consider the candidacy of Mr. Marsh along with another application which was submitted after the 30-day mark. Ģ��ƵDT awarded Mr. Marsh 2,500 Euros for material damage and the same sum for moral damage.

Legal Principle(s)

Due process violations, in and of themselves, do not necessarily warrant an award of compensation; awards of compensation depend on the damages suffered by the individual.

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

Marsh

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement