Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

While the Respondent submits that the recognized heads of damage are: actual pecuniary loss; damages for procedural error and moral damages, the Tribunal does not consider this list to be exhaustive. The Tribunal cannot conclude that if proper procedures had been followed, the Applicant would have been selected for the subject post. Nonetheless, it considers that the Applicant¡¯s prospect for selection was very high due to the fact that he was the only candidate deemed suitable for the post by the Advisory Selection Panel. Thus, the contested decision impacts substantially on the Applicant¡¯s...

Article 10(5) of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is silent as to how compensation to be awarded to a party is to be calculated. The Respondent submits that in such circumstances where there is a lacuna in the internal law of the organization, general principles of law provide a source of internal administrative law and should be applied. The Tribunal agrees with this reasoning and further notes that how this Article will be applied will depend on the particular circumstances of each case. The recognized heads of damage are: actual pecuniary loss; damages for procedural error and moral damages. An...

Outcome: For distress: USD5,000. For loss of chance: (a) 10 percent of the difference between the salary the applicant actually carries and that she would have received in the D-2 position on a continuous basis, (b) 10 percent of any additional allowances and benefits she would have received at the D-2 level including adjustment of her pension contributions and consequent retirement benefits.

In declaring the Applicant¡¯s appeal time-barred on the issue of the reclassification of her post, the Secretary-General wrongfully considered that the Administration¡¯s failure to take action on the Applicant¡¯s appeal of a classification decision was an implicit decision of refusal that she should have contested within the time limits set forth in former staff rule 111.2 (a). ST/AI/1998/9 sets out special procedures for contesting a post classification or reclassification. In particular, it provides for the referral of the appeal to a Classification Appeals Committee. When an appeal is referred...

The applicant had a real and substantial chance of appointment of around 50 percent and that the appointment would have lasted until his 2010 retirement date. USD2,000 nominal compensation awarded for loss of the chance to work in New York.

Presumption of regularity. There is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed, but this presumption is rebuttable. If the Respondent is able to even minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given a full and fair consideration, which he did not in the present case, then the presumption of law stands satisfied. Once a minimal showing has been made, the burden of proof thereafter shift to the Applicant, who need to show through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of promotion. Cancelling the first selection exercise and reissuing a...

Outcome: Applicant awarded: (1) six months¡¯ net base salary in effect at the time of the selection process mentioned herein, as non-pecuniary compensation for the substantial and unwarranted irregularities in the selection process; and (2) three months¡¯ net base pay in effect at the time of the selection process for the stress experienced by the Applicant that was causally related to the Applicant¡¯s loss of chance/loss of opportunity.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicants may amend their request for compensation as, in Order No. 104 (NY/2011) specifically called for updated submissions on compensation, under which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT thus granted leave for the Applicants¡¯ amended submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT denied the compensation request for loss of opportunity to pursue the new P-4 level post created in ORES, as the Applicants did not present any evidence supporting their contention that they were denied this opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded compensation for loss of chance/opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT listed the following significant factors: (a) the existence of numerous...

The Tribunal finds that the Administration erred in considering that no classification decision had been taken. It further finds that the Applicant duly followed the procedure foreseen in ST/AI/1998/9 and that she was deprived of her right to a remedy. Turning to the question whether such breach resulted in loss of a chance to have her post classified at the P-4 level, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant has not shown that she suffered any actual material harm, given the uncertainty surrounding a possible approval of the new budgetary post by OPPBA and the General Assembly. However, it...

Receivability: Since the Applicant was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG when the contested decision was taken, it indeed affected his terms of appointment. The Tribunal is thus competent to examine the case in accordance with article 2.1 of its Statute. Selection procedure: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR based its decision on the advice of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDSS which did not grant clearance to the Applicant¡¯s candidacy. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR was not compelled to follow the advice of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDSS concerning the candidacy of the Applicant because this practice is not codified in any legal text of regulatory character. Hence, the contested decision is illegal...