2010-惇蹋厙AT-009

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered Mr James＊ appeal and the Secretary-General＊s cross-appeal. 惇蹋厙AT affirmed 惇蹋厙DT＊s finding that Mr James was not eligible for the P-3 position both because he did not take the required examination and because of the lack of required qualifications. 惇蹋厙AT accordingly dismissed Mr James＊ appeal that 惇蹋厙DT erred in not awarding him compensation for loss of opportunity. 惇蹋厙AT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress. 惇蹋厙AT noted that the compensation was not requested, there was no evidence of damage or injuries, and Mr James acknowledged on appeal that he only claimed monetary loss as his real injury. 惇蹋厙AT noted that the applicable law governing compensation precludes such an award. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed Mr James＊ appeal and affirmed 惇蹋厙DT＊s finding that he was ineligible for the P-3 position. 惇蹋厙AT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr James contested his non-appointment to a P-3 position. 惇蹋厙DT found that he could not be recruited from his general service role to the professional level without undergoing the required examination. 惇蹋厙DT awarded a three-month salary as compensation for the distress caused by the Organisation.

Legal Principle(s)

An individual may not be awarded compensation for the loss of an opportunity if they were not eligible for the said opportunity.

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙AT 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

James

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement