2010-Ģ��ƵAT-059

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Secretary-General claimed that Ģ��ƵDT had no power to award interest. Ģ��ƵAT found that both Ģ��ƵDT and Ģ��ƵAT have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. The very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its statutory obligations. In many cases, interest will be by definition part of compensation. To say that the tribunals have no jurisdiction to order the payment of interest would, in many cases, mean that the staff member could not be placed in the same position, and that, therefore, proper compensation could not be awarded. Noting the inconsistent approach of Ģ��ƵDT in several of its judgments, Ģ��ƵAT decided to award interest at the US Prime Rate applicable at the due date of the entitlement, calculated from the due date of the entitlement to the date of payment of the compensation awarded by Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT further ordered the Secretary-General to make the payment within 60 days of the Ģ��ƵAT judgment and that an additional five per cent be added to the US Prime Rate from the date of expiry of the 60-day period to the date of payment if the payment of the compensation was not made within 60 days.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The staff member claimed that the amount paid to him as his lump sum entitlement for home leave travel had been incorrectly calculated. Ģ��ƵDT held that the amount had been calculated on the wrong basis and ordered the Secretary-General to pay the staff member the difference between the amount of the lump sum entitlement as determined by Ģ��ƵDT and the amount already paid pursuant to the Organisation��s calculation. Ģ��ƵDT further ordered the Secretary-General to pay the staff member interest on the difference at the rate of eight per cent per year, from the date of the contested decision to the date of payment.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT and Ģ��ƵAT have the authority to award interest on orders for compensation.

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 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

Warren

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement