Ăĺ±±˝űµŘ

UNDT/2023/045

UNDT/2023/045, Heurtematte

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Rescission and in lieu compensation under art. 10.5(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute

Considering that the evidence provided by the Respondent showed that the duration of most of the former renewals of the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment including the last regular renewal was for a duration of one year and that there is no expectation of renewal for a fixed-term appointment, the Tribunal determined that the amount of in lieu compensation must be equal to one year’s net base salary.

Compensation for harm under art. 10.5(b) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute

The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant’s arguments and the evidence submitted and found that none of the medical reports on record show any evidence of a nexus between the Applicant’s health problems and the unlawful decisions.

Under such circumstances, the Tribunal concurred with the Respondent that the Applicant had not shown the required causal link between the alleged harm experienced and the decision to abolish his post and the subsequent non-renewal of his appointment. As such, the Tribunal did not grant the Applicant compensation for harm under art. 10.5 (b) of its Statute.

 

All the other claims were rejected.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to abolish his post which caused the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment beyond 30 September 2021.

In its Judgment No. UNDT/2022/131, this Tribunal found that the decisions to abolish the Applicant’s post and not to renew his appointment were unlawful. The Tribunal thus only determined remedies on the present judgment.

Legal Principle(s)

The UNAT held that “the very purpose of in lieu compensation is to place the staff member in the same position in which he or she would have been, had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations”. It also further held that the Tribunal “shall ordinarily give some justification and set an amount that the Tribunal considers to be an appropriate substitution for rescission or specific performance in a given and concrete situation” (see Laasri 2021-UNAT-1122, para. 63).

The UNAT held that “the determination of the quantum of in lieu compensation will depend on the circumstances of each case, but some relevant factors that can be considered, among others, are the nature of the post formerly occupied, the remaining time to be served by a staff member on his or her appointment, and their expectancy of renewal” (see Afm Badrul Alam 2022-UNAT-1214, para. 28).

The UNAT has consistently held since the amendment of art. 10.5 (b) that a breach of staff member’s rights, despite its fundamental nature, is thus not sufficient to justify compensation for harm. There must indeed be proven harm stemming directly from the Administration’s illegal act or omission for compensation to be awarded (see Kebede 2018-UNAT-874, para. 21).

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part
Outcome Extra Text

The Tribunal decided to grant the Applicant one year’s net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission under art. 10.5(a) of its Statute. No compensation for harm was granted and all other claims were rejected.

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.

Applicants/ Appellants
Heurtematte
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Document Topic/Theme :
Applicable Law