2015-罌厭弝ⅰAT-587

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT had before it an appeal by the staff member limited to the award of compensation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT set the compensation in lieu of reinstatement award by calculating the sum the Appellant would have received for the remainder of his two-year contract, less the amount he received as salaries from other employers during the same period. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no error in this regard. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it was satisfied that in its assessment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT was conscious of the Appellant＊s claims for loss of opportunity. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, in view of the large discretion afforded to 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT in matters related to compensation, 罌厭弝ⅰAT deferred to 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT when it determined compensatory damages to cover loss of earning and loss of opportunities. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, as it found that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT did not commit any error of law in its assessment of the compensation award, which 罌厭弝ⅰAT found to be fair and reasonable, 罌厭弝ⅰAT would not interfere with the award. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant＊s submissions that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT erred as a matter of law when it did not included entitlements in its awarded compensation were misconceived, as there was a two-year cap on compensatory damages, noting that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT had not recorded any reasons for considering that this was an exceptional case warranting an award higher than two years＊ net base salary. Noting the two years＊ net base salary cap, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it was irrelevant that, by his own calculation the Appellant may have earned up to USD 98,576, a sum equivalent to more than four years＊ net base salary. On the Appellant＊s claim that the award for moral damages of USD 5,000 was paltry compared to other awards for non-pecuniary damages by 罌厭弝ⅰAT, 罌厭弝ⅰAT reiterated that the assessment of compensation was done on a case-by-case basis and according to the discretion of each Tribunal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT did not commit any error of law in its assessment of the compensation award for material and moral damages which were fair and reasonable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT: The Applicant contested his termination. 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT found the contested decision was illegal, ordered its rescission, and awarded compensation for material damages (USD 18,500), which included compensation for loss of opportunity, and moral damages (USD 5,000).

Legal Principle(s)

The assessment of compensation is done on a case-by-case basis and according to the discretion of each Tribunal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

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 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT 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

Faraj

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement