�山����

Regarding the applicable Appendix D to the present case, the Tribunal notes that in the current Appendix D (ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.1), it is stated that “[f]or claims filed for incidents that occurred prior to the entry into force of the present revised rules, the previously applicable rules will be applied” (see art. 6.1(b)). According to the Applicant’s own factual submissions, whereas his compensation claim was submitted on 29 June 2018, it concerned incidents that occurred somewhere between 2015 and until his medical leave started in August 2017. The applicable Appendix D is therefore one...

Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the UNDT Judgment asking that UNAT reverse the UNDT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman’s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. UNAT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...

UNAT granted the appeal in part. UNAT held that UNDT erred by failing to implement its mandatory obligation to award an amount of compensation in lieu of rescission. UNAT held that there was no error in the UNDT’s finding that the Appellant had not discharged his burden of proof that the contested decision caused a loss of income due to loss of career opportunity. UNAT held that the Appellant did not discharge his onus to show that UNDT erred as the first instance trier of fact with regard to the issue of moral damages, and therefore accepted the UNDT’s findings on compensation for moral...

The deadline for the Applicant’s request for compensation for any alleged irregularity in the handling of his complaint of misconduct started on 27 June 2019 when he was notified of the outcome of the complaint. The 27 June 2019 notification rendered the decision resulting from the Applicant’s complaint final and therefore reviewable under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. Consequently, the notification date starts the clock running for any challenge of such administrative decision. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant had 60 days to request management evaluation of the contested...

The Tribunal found it most unlikely that—in the hypothesis that the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment had not already been terminated on 9 May 2018—it would have been renewed from 31 August (the expiry date of his fixed-term appointment) to 31 December 2019 (the last date before the abolition of his post). The Tribunal found that despite the Applicant’s skills and credentials, it would be most unlikely that he would have been transferred to the post of the Director of Governance Services.

The Applicant was awarded the full salary (net base salary plus post adjustment) he would have obtained...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General on the compensation awarded. UNAT considered the cross-appeal by Ms Antaki, regarding UNDT’s finding that the decision not to appoint her was valid and lawful, in a separate judgment (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-096). UNAT held that, despite the shortcomings in the process, the decision not to appoint Ms Antaki was both valid and lawful, which should have precluded UNDT from awarding any compensation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in awarding compensation in the absence of any procedural errors in the selection process, or a breach of legal rights...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it would not approve the award of compensation when absolutely no harm had been suffered. UNAT agreed with the UNDT that a staff member had the right to be informed of administrative decisions affecting them, however, UNAT held that a few days lapse was inconsequential and, in the matter before it, had no consequences. UNAT vacated the part of the UNDT judgment awarding compensation.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General on the matter of the interest. UNAT held that UNDT has the power to award interest but erred in ordering the payment of interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum. UNAT allowed the appeal in part, set aside the award of interest from the UNDT judgment, and awarded interest at the US Prime Rate applicable at the date that the entitlements became due. UNAT held that if the judgment was not executed within 60 days, five per cent should be added to the US Prime Rate from the date of expiry of the 60-day period to the date of payment of the...

UNAT affirmed the UNDT award of compensation for loss of earnings for seven months from the date of the staff member’s separation from service to the date of the UNDT judgment (as an alternative to the order for reinstatement of the staff member) plus an additional amount of two years’ net base salary. The Secretary-General maintained that, while the total of these amounts exceeded the compensation limit of two years’ net base salary, UNDT did not particularize any reasons to justify an increased award under Article 10.5(b) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that Article 10.5(b) does not require a...

UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence in ordering the payment of interest from the due date of the relocation grant, but that UNDT had erred in setting the interest rate at 8 per cent. UNAT held that both UNDT and UNAT must have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment and Order No. 30 to the extent that UNDT awarded interest on the relocation grant and replaced the interest rate of 8 per cent with the United States prime rate applicable on 4 May 2008 (5 per cent).