2013-Ģ��ƵAT-305

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT recalled that Ģ��ƵAT expressly held in Mmata (judgment No. 2010-Ģ��ƵAT-092) that Article 10. 5 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute limited the total of all compensation to the equivalent of two years�� net base salary of the applicant, unless higher compensation was warranted and reasons were given to explain what makes the case exceptional. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the case was exceptional, including a series of orders for suspension of action, findings of fact pointing to evidence of abuse of authority, retaliatory threats, and a hostile and offensive environment requiring protective measures for Mr Kasmani��s witnesses, which supported an increased award. However, Ģ��ƵAT held that the award of 28 months�� net-base salary was excessive. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no merit in the ground of appeal relating to the order of Ģ��ƵDT for the Ethics Office to remain seized of the matter as it was merely an extension of its previous order. Ģ��ƵAT allowed the appeal against the quantum of compensation by Ģ��ƵDT, set aside the compensation awarded by Ģ��ƵDT, and awarded USD 10,000 in compensation.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested his separation from service. Ģ��ƵDT found for the Applicant, awarded compensation, and ordered the Ethics Office to remain seized of the matter and monitor the situation.

Legal Principle(s)

The Ģ��ƵDT Statute limits the total of all compensation ordered under Articles 10.5(a) and 10.5(b), or both, to the equivalent of two years�� net base salary of the applicant, unless higher compensation is warranted, and reasons are given to explain what makes the case exceptional.

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

Kasmani

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement