2011-Ģ��ƵAT-151

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

As a preliminary issue, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ģ��ƵDT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err by failing to order the Appellant��s reinstatement or compensation in lieu thereof. Ģ��ƵAT held that the original illegal decision did not result in the illegality of the later confirmatory act. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in not ordering reinstatement as specific performance or higher compensation. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any errors warranting the reversal of the impugned judgment. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to transfer her. Ģ��ƵDT found that the original decision was illegal, as the new Executive Secretary had not delegated power to his Deputy to take such decisions and because it was inadequately justified. However, Ģ��ƵDT found that the decision to confirm the original decision was lawful. Ģ��ƵDT ordered rescission of the original decision, and compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT is authorised to assess the relevance of evidence offered by a party to prove essential facts in the case and to refuse evidence related to non-relevant facts. Compensation in lieu of specific performance is only required when the administrative decision which is rescinded concerned an appointment, promotion or termination.

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

Kaddoura

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement