2012-惇蹋厙AT-219

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered the Secretary-General＊s appeal regarding the compensation award of six months＊ net base salary for the irregularities in the selection process. 惇蹋厙AT noted that the present case substantially differed from Kasyanov (2010-惇蹋厙AT-076), which the Secretary-General relied upon; had Mr Kasyanov been selected, it would have been a mere lateral move for him without any change in salary and status. Contrastingly, Mr Sprauten＊s selection would have been a move from a temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment. 惇蹋厙AT rejected the Secretary-General＊s contention that 惇蹋厙DT erred in law and exceeded its competence by failing to sufficiently state the reasons underlying its award of six months＊ net base salary. Recalling its holding in Lutta (2011-惇蹋厙AT-117), where it affirmed that there is no set way for a trial court to set damages for loss of chance of promotion and that each case must turn on its facts, 惇蹋厙AT found that 惇蹋厙DT had correctly followed this jurisprudence. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Sprauten contested his non-selection for a post, claiming the process had been tainted with irregularities. 惇蹋厙DT found that the selection process was flawed, resulting in a breach of Mr Sprauten＊s candidacy being adequately and properly considered. 惇蹋厙DT awarded Mr Sprauten compensation in the amount of nine months＊ net base salary: six months＊ net base salary as non-pecuniary compensation for the substantial and unwarranted irregularities in the selection process and three months＊ net base salary as compensation for the stress that he had experienced related to his loss of chance/opportunity.

Legal Principle(s)

There is no set way for a trial court to set damages for loss of chance of promotion; each case must turn on its facts.

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

Sprauten

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement