2017-UNAT-783

2017-UNAT-783, Sarrouh

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which was limited to the UNDT’s award of compensation in lieu of rescission, which he claimed was excessive. UNAT held that since the Secretary-General did not contest Ms Sarrouh’s claim for compensation before UNDT, he could not raise the issue on appeal. UNAT held that UNDT’s award of in-lieu compensation was based on the uncontested evidence before it and as such, its findings were not unreasonable and it did not commit any error in its assessment of the compensation award. UNAT held that in the absence of any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings, UNAT would not interfere with the discretion vested in UNDT to decide on a remedy. UNAT rejected Ms Sarrouh’s claim for costs on the ground that the Secretary-General’s appeal fell well short of manifest abuse of the appeals process. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Ms Sarrouh contested the decision to end her assignment with the Bureau for Policy and Programme Support (BPPS) and to abolish the post she was encumbering. UNDT held that this decision was unlawful since Ms Sarrouh had not been assigned to a post with BPPS at the time she received the contested decision. UNDT concluded that the real reason for the Applicant’s termination was her extended sick leave. UNDT rescinded the contested decision, granted compensation in lieu of rescission, and ordered moral damages.

Legal Principle(s)

A party is not permitted to raise new arguments at the appeal stage, nor can that party argue that the UNDT erred on questions of fact or law with respect to allegations that were not raised before UNDT for its consideration.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Sarrouh

Entity

UNDP

Case Number(s)

2017-1064

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York