±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT thus granted leave for the Applicants¡¯ amended submissions. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded compensation for loss of chance/opportunity. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT listed the following significant factors: (a) the existence of numerous...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that General Assembly resolution 63/253, by which the Assembly adopted the statutes of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, imposed limitations on their jurisdiction. Interns presently do not have access to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. Having found that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the application, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed it without consideration of its merits.

Noting that the Applicant had neither filed an application on the merits nor any other application with regard to this case file, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT closed the case.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application did not meet the test as set out in Article 2.2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, specifically noting that it failed to meet the requirements for irreparable damage and particular urgency. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT therefore considered it unnecessary to determine the issue of prima facie unlawfulness.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered the Respondent to (i) remove adverse material from the Organization¡¯s files, (ii) send to the Member States that received the summary a copy of the Judgment and explanatory statement, (iii) pay monetary compensation in the amount of USD60,000 for non-pecuniary harm, including emotional distress and damage caused to the Applicant¡¯s reputation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s claims for direct economic loss.

The Tribunal took note of the fact that the management evaluation was completed on 29 September 2011, thus rendering moot the application for suspension of action filed on 28 September 2011. The application for suspension of action was thus rejected.

The Tribunal ruled that the Applicant, as a 15-day candidate, had been given priority consideration, in compliance with section 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3. It concluded that the Applicant had been considered first than 30-day candidates and found unsuitable for the post before any meaningful consideration of 30-day candidates took place. Priority consideration as per section 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3: This provision, as consistently interpreted by the Dispute and the Appeals Tribunals, requires that 15-day and 30-day candidates be considered separately; 15-day candidates must be considered first and, if...

The Tribunal found that the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9 did not allow the reclassification of the Applicant¡¯s post and concluded accordingly that the Applicant had no grounds for contesting the refusal to reclassify his post. The Tribunal further found that the Administration¡¯s delays in notifying the Applicant of the reclassification decision, even though the decision was well-founded, had caused him to suffer moral damage, for which the Tribunal awarded EUR2,000.

The Tribunal found that the intervention of the head of department in the appointment of the selection panel constituted a procedural flaw in the selection process. Since the Applicant had not requested the rescission of the contested decision but only compensation, the Tribunal examined whether such irregularity had caused any damage to the Applicant. It found that the latter, who had been proposed for the post, had failed to establish any causal link between the procedural flaw in the selection process and his non-selection. Selection panel: Although ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 is silent on the...

The Tribunal found that the Administration had fulfilled its obligation, stressing that the results in the tests indicated that the Applicant was less qualified for the posts than the other candidates. Receivability ratione materiae: Although the contested decision was made after the Applicant had ceased to be a staff member, it is directly linked to her separation and corresponds to the criteria set in the relevant jurisprudence of an ¡°administrative decision¡± subject to appeal. Priority consideration: A promise of priority consideration must be understood as giving priority only over other...