2012-UNAT-245, Muratore
UNAT held that the Appellant was asking for a review of his case in order to enhance the award and that he merely repeated arguments already considered and accepted by UNDT, which was not the purpose of an appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant had not met the burden of demonstrating that the UNDT had erred in assessing the damages. UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision on this point. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
The Applicant contested the decisions not to select him for two posts, having applied for a few vacancies. UNDT concluded that a) there were no irregularities in the Yaoundé P-4 selection process; b) the selection process for the Geneva P-4 was flawed; c) the selection process for the Geneva P-3s contained substantive errors; and d) the selection process for the Yaoundé P-3 was flawed. As a result of its findings, UNDT awarded the Applicant seven months’ net base salary at the rate in effect on the date of his separation from OHCHR, in addition to one month’s net base salary already authorised by the Secretary-General. The Applicant appealed.
UNAT generally defers to the trial court’s discretion in the award of damages as there is no set way for the trial court to set damages for loss of chance of promotion. UNDT should be guided by two elements in the setting of damages for loss of chance of promotion: (1) the nature of the irregularity; and (2) the chance that the staff member would have had to be promoted or selected had the correct procedure been followed.