text: XLVI.With regard to the injury sustained, the Applicants estimate it, for each of them, as the net amount of their base salary for a period of three years. The compensation thus requested exceeds by one year's salary the maximum amount which the Tribunal would normally award. The Tribunal considers that this is an "exceptional case" justifying the payment of higher compensation. The Tribunal notes that the Applicants have displayed outstanding professional ability and competence in the performance of their duties, that they had a reasonable expectancy of permanent employment and a career in the United Nations, that after offering them a career appointment the Administration proposed a two-year renewal of contract and then withdrew the offer, and that this vacillation constituted a particularly painful mental ordeal for the Applicants in the then prevailing circumstances, that the Administration has not acted in the Applicants' case with the prudence, care and attention to be expected of an international organization with regard to personnel questions, and lastly, that the rule that compensation may not exceed two years' net base salary would not, in this case, adequately compensate the Applicants for the injury they have sustained and will sustain if they are not granted career appointments. XLVII.The Tribunal considers that there is no need in this case to rule on the question of the privilege claimed by the Respondent regarding certain communications between the Secretary-General and- 28 - the Chinese Mission which the Tribunal had asked him to produce. XLVIII. For these reasons, the Tribunal: 1.Declares that the Applicants' pleas for the reimbursement by the Tax Equalization Fund, of the monies which they remitted to the Chinese Mission from their United Nations salaries are not receivable at this stage. 2.Rescinds the decision taken by the Secretary-General on
analysis: The text appears to be discussing a labor dispute and compensation for employees of the United Nations who were injured by the organization's decision to withdraw a job offer. The language used is formal and legal, suggesting a bureaucratic or administrative context. The issues discussed, such as the calculation of compensation and the Tribunal's decision, also indicate a employment-related matter.