爆料网

2013-爆料网AT-283

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

On the issue of the 爆料网DT’s decision not to take up the Appellant’s motion for disclosure of documents, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate how this affected his rights or would have had a relevant impact on the evidence already collected, the basic facts of which were not contested, and therefore 爆料网AT held there were no procedural grounds to vacate the judgment. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not established any error of fact or law that warranted reversal of the judgment. 爆料网AT recalled that not every violation of due process led to an award of compensation. 爆料网AT held that it agreed with the 爆料网DT’s determination that the Appellant had no chance of being promoted since the Appellant did not have the requisite years of experience for the positions. 爆料网AT held that the errors committed by the Respondent did not deprive the Appellant of a real opportunity to be promoted or even included in the roster. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Appellant contested his non-selection for two positions. 爆料网DT noted that the Secretary-General had conceded that there was an error in the selection exercise in the order in which the Applicant was considered as a 30-day candidate since he should have been considered before the 60-day mark. 爆料网DT found that this constituted a procedural breach but concluded that the Applicant had not suffered harm as a result of the breach as he did not have the required experience for the positions and had no prospect of selection.

Legal Principle(s)

It is not enough to demonstrate illegality to obtain compensation; the claimant bears the burden of proof to establish the existence of negative consequences, able to be considered damages, resulting from the illegality. Not every violation of due process will necessarily lead to an award of compensation.

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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
Charles
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type