2013-Ģ��ƵAT-379

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the Secretary-General��s appeal. Ģ��ƵAT rejected the Secretary-General��s submission that Ģ��ƵDT erred in ��double-counting�� by using the same element of Mr Andersson��s high chance of promotion to justify both its award of CHF 10,000 in lieu of rescission, as well as its award of CHF 4,000 for moral damages. The claim for moral damages was related to the reparation of an injury, that could not be regarded as covered by the payment of CHF 10,000 awarded as an alternative to rescission. Ģ��ƵAT also rejected the Secretary-General��s submission that Mr Andersson only fleetingly referred to moral damage and did not provide other evidence of it. The recording of the phone evidence given by Mr Andersson, (which was unclear in some parts), confirmed that he discussed moral damages, and the Ģ��ƵDT judgment alluded to it when referring to ��the circumstances of this case. Ģ��ƵAT further held that Mr Andersson was the victim of a fundamental procedural violation which, in and of itself, may give rise to an award of moral damages, following Asariotis, judgment No. 2013-Ģ��ƵAT-309. Ģ��ƵAT found no reason to differ from Ģ��ƵDT��s determination regarding the level of compensation awarded. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ģ��ƵDT��s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Andersson contested the High Commissioner��s decision to not promote him to the P-3 level at the 2009 annual promotions session. Ģ��ƵDT ordered rescission of the decision not to promote Mr Andersson on the basis that Ģ��ƵHCR had failed to adhere to the specified precise criteria and, in the alternative, ordered payment of CHF 10,000 to Mr Andresson ��for the remuneration lost as a consequence of the non-promotion in 2009��. In addition, Ģ��ƵDT awarded Mr Andersson CHF 4,000 for moral damages. Ģ��ƵHCR subsequently rescinded the contested decision, promoted Mr Andersson with retroactive effect, with backdated salary and emoluments amounting to USD 11,585. 67.

Legal Principle(s)

The Ģ��ƵDT is best placed to conclude from the evidence, records, or otherwise, whether or not a claim for moral damages was established

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

Andersson

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement