²Ù±ÆÊÓƵapp

As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal’s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of fact in the assessment of the staff member’s career. Under the principle that similar acts require similar rules, the decision that modifies the original provision governing the promotion procedure in UNHCR must be taken through the same procedure followed to adopt the original provision. While the Tribunal can only examine the legality of a decision which has been subject of a request for a management evaluation, no provision prevents an applicant from raising before the Tribunal arguments different from those raised in her request for management evaluation. The lack of transparency alleged by the applicant is a general argument which, to be retained, must be based on particular facts showing that the legal instruments applicable to the promotion of staff were not followed. The APPB rules of procedure state that the APPB is established to advise the High Commissioner on appointments, postings and promotions of staff. Hence, the High Commissioner cannot legally promote a staff member whose situation has not been considered by the APPB. This irregularity must lead to the rescission of the decision to deny the applicant a promotion. Pursuant to article 10.5(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Judge set the sum of CHF10,000 as the amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to pay as an alternative to the rescission of the contested administrative decision. This sum compensates the material damage suffered by the applicant but not the moral damage. The Judge will only grant compensation for moral damage if he considers that the applicant would have had a chance of promotion had no irregularity been committed. In the case at hand, the applicant did not have a chance of promotion thus there is no compensation for moral damage.The Tribunal did not find that the respondent had abused the proceedings. Hence, it did not award costs against the respondent pursuant to article 10.6 of the UNDT Statute.