Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Terragnolo’s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by UNDT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. UNAT noted that the impugned judgment followed UNAT’s jurisprudence, but UNDT’s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. UNAT held that due respect must be shown to the trial court’s assessment of the quantum of damages and that it should not interfere with the exercise of that discretion. Following this reasoning, UNAT also found no merit in Mr Terragnolo’s cross-appeal and noted that the amount of compensation for moral damages could not be increased due to a finding of retaliation, because there was no evidence on the record that it caused the administrative illegality. UNAT found no merit in Mr Terragnolo’s claim for reimbursement of the cost of his studies, as that was a benefit he acquired irrespective of any examinations or competing processes that he could have attended or actually attended. UNAT dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.