Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and the evidence on record, the Tribunal defined the issues for determination as follows:

a. Whether the Applicant had a realistic chance of being selected; and

b. Whether the Applicant suffered any financial loss due to the contested decision.

Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the Management Evaluation Unit had already determined that there were irregularities in the selection process and recommended that the selection exercise be redone. The Under Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (USG/DMSPC) had also already directed UNISFA to conduct a new recruitment exercise for the position. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to determine whether the procedure laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules was followed, or whether the staff member was given fair and adequate consideration.

However, the Tribunal found that, excluding the unlawfully selected candidate, the Applicant would have had a realistic chance of selection, as he was one of the four applicants considered to have met all the required and desirable criteria.

Concerning the second issue of financial loss, the Tribunal held that the non-payment of the Applicant’s mobility allowance is not an economic loss as the Applicant was not relocated as a result of this selection process. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant suffered no additional economic loss, as the contested position was at the same P-4 level at which the Applicant was serving.

Furthermore, the Tribunal recalled that the USG/DMSPC had instructed UNISFA to conduct a new recruitment exercise. Therefore, the Applicant still had an opportunity to compete for the position.

Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant had lost a chance of selection, he suffered no actual prejudice in the special circumstances of this case. As a result, the remedies he sought were denied.

In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal decided to deny the application in its entirety.