Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s pronouncement that the clear purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3 was to restrict the entitlement to home leave to those who are serving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ outside of their home country and by implication their country of nationality, was the correct interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in law with regard to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach on the issue of home leave. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, as a matter of law and fact, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s move to his country of nationality was a good reason for the Secretary-General to reassess his eligibility for a country of home leave other than the country of nationality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in light of the Appellant having returned to work and residing in the country of his nationality, he ceased to be eligible for the payment of an education grant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Secretary-General was entitled to refuse the Appellant¡¯s application for an education grant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while it gave due recognition to the fact that the Administration¡¯s errors impacted adversely on the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in assessing the level of compensation, erred in failing to attach sufficient weight to the reliance placed by the Appellant on the assurances given to him and the reasonable expectations he held, following such assurances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its conclusion that the payment made by the Administration constituted sufficient satisfaction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal in part and awarded the increased compensation to two years of the education grant which would have been available to the Appellant for the school years 2006/2007 and 2007/2008.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision that he was ineligible for either home leave or an education grant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found against the Applicant and considered that the Secretary-General¡¯s exceptional authorisation of an education grant for two years constituted a sufficient remedy for any errors made by the Organisation.
Legal Principle(s)
Where the administration commits an irregularity, it falls to it to take such measure as are appropriate to correct the staff member¡¯s situation. Where a staff member has acted in good faith, he or she is entitled to compensation for the damage suffered as a result.