2012-Ģ��ƵAT-245

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant was asking for a review of his case in order to enhance the award and that he merely repeated arguments already considered and accepted by Ģ��ƵDT, which was not the purpose of an appeal. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had not met the burden of demonstrating that the Ģ��ƵDT had erred in assessing the damages. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision on this point. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decisions not to select him for two posts, having applied for a few vacancies. Ģ��ƵDT concluded that a) there were no irregularities in the Yaound�� P-4 selection process; b) the selection process for the Geneva P-4 was flawed; c) the selection process for the Geneva P-3s contained substantive errors; and d) the selection process for the Yaound�� P-3 was flawed. As a result of its findings, Ģ��ƵDT awarded the Applicant seven months�� net base salary at the rate in effect on the date of his separation from OHCHR, in addition to one month��s net base salary already authorised by the Secretary-General. The Applicant appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵAT generally defers to the trial court��s discretion in the award of damages as there is no set way for the trial court to set damages for loss of chance of promotion. Ģ��ƵDT should be guided by two elements in the setting of damages for loss of chance of promotion: (1) the nature of the irregularity; and (2) the chance that the staff member would have had to be promoted or selected 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

Muratore

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement