Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
On the issue of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision not to take up the Appellant¡¯s motion for disclosure of documents, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate how this affected his rights or would have had a relevant impact on the evidence already collected, the basic facts of which were not contested, and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there were no procedural grounds to vacate the judgment. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any error of fact or law that warranted reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that not every violation of due process led to an award of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the Appellant had no chance of being promoted since the Appellant did not have the requisite years of experience for the positions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the errors committed by the Respondent did not deprive the Appellant of a real opportunity to be promoted or even included in the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Appellant contested his non-selection for two positions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Secretary-General had conceded that there was an error in the selection exercise in the order in which the Applicant was considered as a 30-day candidate since he should have been considered before the 60-day mark. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that this constituted a procedural breach but concluded that the Applicant had not suffered harm as a result of the breach as he did not have the required experience for the positions and had no prospect of selection.
Legal Principle(s)
It is not enough to demonstrate illegality to obtain compensation; the claimant bears the burden of proof to establish the existence of negative consequences, able to be considered damages, resulting from the illegality. Not every violation of due process will necessarily lead to an award of compensation.