Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal found that the decision was illegal and ordered that it be rescinded, and that the Applicant be granted USD3,000 as compensation for the material damages. Administrative decision/receivability ratione temporis The preliminary determination by an Interview Panel that a person is not eligible to apply for a vacancy announcement does not produce direct legal consequences and as such does not constitute an administrative decision for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) and art. 2(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. The statutory time-limit of staff rule 11.2(c) only starts to run once a final decision, which ought to be qualified as an administrative decision as per the definition of Judgment No. 1157 Andronov (2003) of the former Ãå±±½ûµØAdministrative Tribunal, endorsed by the UNAT, is notified to the Applicant. Unlike under former staff rule 111.2(a), under current staff rule 11.2(c) an administrative decision does not need to be notified in writing. Discrimination The intent and purpose of sec. 1(o) of ST/AI/2010/3 is to give a competitive advantage to female staff members working at the P-3 or P-4 level at a fund and programme, by extending to them the status of internal applicants when applying for P-4 or P-5 posts falling within the scope of ST/AI/2010/3. The decision to find that the Applicant, as an internal candidate under sec. 1(o), is ineligible under sec. 6.1 of ST/AI/2010/3 to apply for the generic vacancy announcement for P-5 positions, constitutes unjustified discrimination, which is in clear contradiction to the intent and purpose of sec. 1(o) of ST/AI/2010/3. Indeed, sec. 6.1 obviously does not apply to male staff members of the separately administered funds and programmes in the same contractual situation, who, unlike their female colleagues, are not considered as internal applicants under sec. 1(o) and, as such, would not be precluded from applying for posts more than one level higher than their personal grade. Scope of art. 10.5(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute Article 10.5(a) has to be applied restrictively. An applicant whose candidature for a generic vacancy announcement is successful is not automatically promoted, but is merely selected to be put on a roster; the promotion only materialises if and when the applicant is subsequently selected from the roster. Therefore, the decision to find an applicant ineligible to apply for a generic vacancy announcement does not in itself constitute a ‘promotion’ decision for the purpose of art. 10.5(a) of the Statute.Compensation/material damages A lost chance of being selected to be put on a roster and subsequently to be selected for a P-5 position, and as such to improve the Applicant’s status within the Organization, may create material damages which warrant that the Applicant be granted moderate compensation.