2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-347

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by Mr Appleton and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held by majority that 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not make an error of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it declined to award compensatory damages to Mr Appleton. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it was entirely appropriate for 罌厭弝ⅰDT to approach the issue of compensation under Article 10(5) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute by engaging in a consideration of Mr Appleton＊s likely prospects of success. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT correctly found that Mr Appleton＊s appointment to the post was not a foregone conclusion and thus he had no expectation of being appointed. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, as 罌厭弝ⅰDT found, Mr Appleton should have reasonable believed that it was unlikely that he would be appointed to the post when the vacancy was re-advertised. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no error in the approach of 罌厭弝ⅰDT in determining the amount of moral damages to award to Mr Appleton. On the Secretary-General＊s challenge to the statement of 罌厭弝ⅰDT on cross-appeal, regarding the inappropriateness of high-level 罌厭弝ⅰ officials to comment publicly on a pending selection process, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the statement by 罌厭弝ⅰDT was not a ruling of any sort and could not be considered separately from the Secretary-General＊s second claim on cross-appeal, which challenged the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s consideration of the highly public selection process as a factor in awarding moral damages. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that since the Secretary-General did not challenge the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s consideration of the other factors listed as grounds for the award of moral damages to Mr Appleton, such as delay, frustration, distress and anxiety, and such factors clearly supported an award of moral damages, the Secretary-General＊s claim came to naught, and the cross-appeal should be dismissed. On Mr Appleton＊s request for costs, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, although it had found no merit in the Secretary-General＊s cross-appeal, it did not find that the cross-appeal was frivolous or that its filing was an abuse of process, and therefore denied the request. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal (Judge Chapman partially dissenting) and the cross-appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

罌厭弝ⅰDT Judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to reject his nomination for a post. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found for the Applicant and awarded damages of USD 30,000.

Legal Principle(s)

There is more than one method by which the trial court can assess compensatory damages, and it is up to that court to determine the method to employ in each case. It is well within the discretion of 罌厭弝ⅰDT to determine the amount of moral damages to award for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case; the amount may vary from case to case depending on the factors considered by 罌厭弝ⅰDT.

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 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT 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

Appleton

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement