Ãå±±½ûµØ

Article 9.3

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 1 - 4 of 4

    2024-UNAT-1458, Islam Said

    Evidence of harm Subject matter (ratione materiae) Procedure (first instance and UNAT) Referral for accountability Non-pecuniary (moral) damages Pecuniary (material) damages Compensation Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance)

    The Appeals Tribunal found, in relation to the first application, that Ms. Said has produced no evidence of harm, much less of harm caused by an illegality, and therefore the request for damages was denied.

    As to the second application, the Appeals Tribunal found that the investigation had been closed with no action taken, and no adverse material from that investigation had been placed in Ms. Said’s Official Status File.  In the absence of an appealable administrative deciison, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNRWA DT was correct in finding that the second application was not...

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    2010-UNAT-059, Warren

    Compensation

    The Secretary-General claimed that UNDT had no power to award interest. UNAT found that both UNDT and UNAT have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. The very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its statutory obligations. In many cases, interest will be by definition part of compensation. To say that the tribunals have no jurisdiction to order the payment of interest would, in many cases, mean that the staff member could not be placed in the same position...

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    2020-UNAT-1027 , Belkhabbaz (formerly Oummih)

    Judgment-related matters Execution of Judgment

    UNAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-UNAT-873 by Ms Belkhabbaz, requesting that UNAT should order specific performance remedies against the individual against whom she had pursued her complaint. UNAT held that, under Section 5. 18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5, the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) had the discretion to decide whether or not to institute disciplinary measures, managerial actions, or administrative actions. UNAT held that the managerial action upon which the ASG/OHRM decided complied with UNAT’s direction in...

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    2021-UNAT-1122, Yasmina Laasri

    Abolition of post Termination Compensation Evidence of harm Exemplary/punitive damages (prohibition against award of) In-lieu compensation Loss of chance Non-pecuniary (moral) damages Pecuniary (material) damages Ethics office Retaliation Jurisdiction / receivability (UNAT) Appeal Non-renewal No expectancy of renewal Remedies Compensation (see also, Compensation) Rescission Separation from service Expiration of appointment (see also, Non-renewal)

    UNAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the UNDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, UNAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the UNDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member’s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). UNAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...

    Full judgment
    Case digest