2019-Ģ��ƵAT-906

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT exceeded its competence in reviewing Mr Omwanda��s EOD date, as it was not subject to a timely request for management evaluation. Ģ��ƵAT held that Mr Omwanda knew or ought to have known from his Letter of Appointment the date from which his appointment was effective, that he had been re-employed, not reinstated, and that its terms applied regardless of any period of former service. Ģ��ƵAT held Ģ��ƵDT was statutorily barred from hearing Mr Omwanda��s application. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Omwanda contested, inter alia, the Administration��s decision not to pay him termination indemnity following an award of disability and the termination of his appointment on medical grounds. Ģ��ƵDT held that the three applications filed by Mr Omwanda succeeded in part. Ģ��ƵDT found that Mr Omwanda should have been deemed to have been in continuous service and, as such, his full period of service had to be taken into account in the computation of his termination indemnity. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Administration had used the incorrect date of entry on duty (EOD) date for the calculation of the termination indemnity due to Mr Omwanda. Ģ��ƵDT rescinded the Administration��s calculation of the termination indemnity, directing the Administration to provide him with a new calculation and to make any necessary adjustments to his separation entitlements and benefits. Ģ��ƵDT awarded Mr Omwanda USD 5,000 non-pecuniary damages for the procedural error.

Legal Principle(s)

An application is not receivable by Ģ��ƵDT if it is filed more than three years after the applicant��s receipt of the contested decision.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Omwanda

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement