�山����

In accordance with article 18, paragraph 2, of its rules of procedure, the Tribunal may order the production of evidence for either party and the parties have to provide such evidence, even though they consider it to be confidential. According to article 18, paragraph 4, of its rules of procedure, it falls upon the Tribunal to assess the confidentiality of the evidence and, if it finds the evidence to be confidential, it is the Tribunal’s responsibility to ensure that measures are taken to preserve such confidentiality. In the instant case, the Tribunal did not use the confidential documents it had requested from the Respondent and therefore did not communicate them to the Applicant. Their confidentiality has therefore been preserved. In view of article 2, paragraph 1 (a), of the statute of the Tribunal, the application is not receivable ratione materiae with respect to the decision not to select the Applicant for a service contract, since the attribution of such a contract is not governed by the Staff Regulations and Rules or the Applicant’s terms of appointment. The Tribunal is competent to examine the decision not to renew the Applicant’s FTA, a decision which itself was not illegal. However, the promise made by the Administration in the memorandum dated 19 August 2008 could only be understood by the Applicant as giving her the quasi certitude that she would obtain a service contract, if she were to apply and to fulfill the required qualifications. Since the terms of reference for the three Project Associate positions, opened under service contracts, were very similar to those of the post occupied by the Applicant, the latter could indeed consider that she had every chance to obtain a service contract and as such a remuneration from the Organization. By making promises it did not respect, the Administration engaged its responsibility and caused a prejudice to the Applicant, for which she merits compensation. Outcome: The Respondent was condemned to pay the Applicant three months net base salary.