2010-Ģ��ƵAT-002

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the Appellant��s appeal and found that Ģ��ƵDT erred when it decided to give Ģ��ƵHCR the option to either pay compensation in lieu of reinstating the Appellant or quash the contested administrative decision. Ģ��ƵAT noted that Article 10. 5(a) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute was not applicable as the Appellant was serving under an indefinite appointment governed by Rule 104. 12(c) of the Staff Rules (100 Series). Ģ��ƵAT expressed that the contested administrative decision did not concern his appointment, promotion, or termination but his placement between assignments. For this reason, Article 10.5(a) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute did not apply as it does not regard staff in between assignments. Ģ��ƵAT ordered that the Appellant be reinstated and reversed Ģ��ƵDT��s order that gave Ģ��ƵHCR the option to pay compensation as an alternative. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant��s claim for moral damages, with respect to the alleged harassment, would be decided in a separate case in which those allegations would be addressed.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested Ģ��ƵHCR��s decision to rescind his post. Ģ��ƵDT held that the procedure followed by Ģ��ƵHCR in rescinding the Applicant��s pose was flawed and gave Ģ��ƵHCR the option to pay the Applicant compensation in lieu of rescission. Ģ��ƵDT also ordered that the Applicant be compensated for moral damage. Ģ��ƵDT further ordered Ģ��ƵHCR to submit additional observations "concerning the facts recounted as well as the damage alleged".

Legal Principle(s)

Article 10.5(a) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute applies to decisions on appointment, promotion, or termination, but not to staff in between assignments.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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

Parker

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement