Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member arguing that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not awarding compensation in lieu of remand to ABCC as an alternative remedy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment not awarding in-lieu compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Secretary-General concurred with the remand in question, the claim became moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a claim of gross negligence against the Administration is a separate action that could not be included in this claim. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated that the delay had any impact on her physical or mental well-being, rejecting her claim for moral damages based on the ABCC¡¯s delay in issuing its report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in failing to address her claim for moral damages and that the Appellant¡¯s right to due process entitled her to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of her application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this procedural error was not prejudicial to the Appellant. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered that the case, as remanded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to ABCC, had to be promptly considered by ABCC. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision that denied her compensation under Appendix D of the Staff Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that claim for compensation was untimely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that ABCC failed to properly exercise its discretion when considering whether exceptional circumstances warranted the acceptance of this untimely claim. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ABCC also erred in refusing to waive the time limit on the ground of insufficient explanation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinded the decision of ABCC to deny the Applicant¡¯s request for consideration of her claim for compensation under Appendix D to the Staff Rules and, subject to the concurrence by the Secretary-General, remanded the claim to ABCC for proper consideration.
Legal Principle(s)
Under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, it is only in cases of appointment, promotion, or termination that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT must set an amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to pay as an alternative to the rescission of the contested administrative decision or specific performance ordered. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute does not require Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to set an amount of compensation in lieu of rescission or specific performance where, as in the present case, the matter is simply remanded, subject to the concurrence of the Secretary-General. A claim of gross negligence against the Administration is a separate action that cannot be included in a claim made by a staff member under Appendix D.