91Â鶹ÌìÃÀ

2018-UNAT-861, Dahan

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member arguing that UNDT erred in not awarding compensation in lieu of remand to ABCC as an alternative remedy. UNAT found no error in the UNDT judgment not awarding in-lieu compensation. UNAT held that since the Secretary-General concurred with the remand in question, the claim became moot. UNAT held that a claim of gross negligence against the Administration is a separate action that could not be included in this claim. UNAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated that the delay had any impact on her physical or mental well-being, rejecting her claim for moral damages based on the ABCC’s delay in issuing its report. UNAT held that UNDT erred in failing to address her claim for moral damages and that the Appellant’s right to due process entitled her to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of her application. UNAT held that this procedural error was not prejudicial to the Appellant. However, UNAT ordered that the case, as remanded by UNDT to ABCC, had to be promptly considered by ABCC. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision that denied her compensation under Appendix D of the Staff Rules. UNDT found that claim for compensation was untimely. UNDT found, however, that ABCC failed to properly exercise its discretion when considering whether exceptional circumstances warranted the acceptance of this untimely claim. UNDT found that ABCC also erred in refusing to waive the time limit on the ground of insufficient explanation. UNDT rescinded the decision of ABCC to deny the Applicant’s request for consideration of her claim for compensation under Appendix D to the Staff Rules and, subject to the concurrence by the Secretary-General, remanded the claim to ABCC for proper consideration.

Legal Principle(s)

Under the UNDT Statute, it is only in cases of appointment, promotion, or termination that UNDT must set an amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to pay as an alternative to the rescission of the contested administrative decision or specific performance ordered. The UNDT Statute does not require UNDT to set an amount of compensation in lieu of rescission or specific performance where, as in the present case, the matter is simply remanded, subject to the concurrence of the Secretary-General. A claim of gross negligence against the Administration is a separate action that cannot be included in a claim made by a staff member under Appendix D.

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.

Applicants/ Appellants
Dahan
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type