2021-Ģ��ƵAT-1096

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT erred in law or in failing to take into account in that calculation the probable length of Mr Dabbour��s tenure in that role which was known to have been of a fixed duration of three years. Ģ��ƵAT held that, although the Ģ��ƵRWA DT in Mr Dabbour��s case had recorded its conclusions on some of these considerations, it did not do so at all in respect of others making it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain objectively how it reached the apparently modest figure of compensation in lieu of recission of USD 1,000. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was nothing to indicate why Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not address these essential criteria and how it arrived at the compensatory figure it did.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The decision to not select Mr Dabbour for the post of Area Registration Officer.

Legal Principle(s)

The wrong suffered by the staff member being the same, it is incumbent on Ģ��ƵRWA DT to ensure that the remedies provided and from which the Commissioner-General selects one (invariably monetary compensation) have an equivalent beneficial compensatory effect for the staff member. The applicable considerations in setting the amount of alternative compensation include the nature of the procedural irregularities, the likelihood of the staff member being selected for the post in question had the irregularities not occurred, the number of short-listed candidates, and the staff member��s ranking among them, the nature of the appointment, and the difference in income, if any, between the post previously or currently encumbered.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

Outcome Extra Text

Appeal granted in part, Judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2020/030 was vacated, and the case was remanded to Ģ��ƵRWA DT to quantify the figures for the compensatory award and disclose them in a further judgment.

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

Emile Abdel Rahman Dabbour

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement