2011-��AT-172

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that an irregularity in promotion procedures could only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance for promotion. ��AT held that there must be a link between the irregularity and the non-promotion decision. Thus, where the irregularity has no impact on the status of a staff member because he or she had no foreseeable chance for promotion, he or she is not entitled to rescission or compensation. ��AT upheld the appeal and vacated the ��DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The staff member contested the decision not to promote her. ��DT found that, by promoting a staff member who was not eligible and whose candidacy had not been examined by the Appointments Postings and Promotions Board, the High Commissioner had committed an irregularity which vitiated the legality of the decision to deny the staff member a promotion. ��DT ordered the rescission of the contested decision or, in lieu thereof, the payment of CHF 8,000 as compensation for the loss of salary due to the denial of promotion. ��DT rejected the staff member��s claim for moral damages, noting that her chances for promotion were ��close to zero��, even if no procedural irregularities had occurred.

Legal Principle(s)

An irregularity in promotion procedures will only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance for promotion.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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

Vangelova

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement