2022-Ģ��ƵAT-1214

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT granted the appeal in part. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred by failing to implement its mandatory obligation to award an amount of compensation in lieu of rescission. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no error in the Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that the Appellant had not discharged his burden of proof that the contested decision caused a loss of income due to loss of career opportunity. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not discharge his onus to show that Ģ��ƵDT erred as the first instance trier of fact with regard to the issue of moral damages, and therefore accepted the Ģ��ƵDT��s findings on compensation for moral damages. Ģ��ƵAT awarded USD 10,350 as in lieu compensation.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Before Ģ��ƵDT, the Applicant contested his non-selection for a position. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Appellant��s application did not receive full and fair consideration. Ģ��ƵDT rescinded the contested decision, but did not order in lieu or moral compensation due to lack of supporting evidence. The Appellant appeals the lack of a compensation award.

Legal Principle(s)

The purpose of in lieu compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the unlawful decision not been made. Compensation must be set by the Ģ��ƵDT following a principled approach and on a case-by-case basis. The determination of the quantum of in lieu compensation will depend on the circumstances of each case, but some relevant factors that can be considered are, among others, the nature of the post formerly occupied, the remaining time to be served by a staff member on his or her appointment, and his or her expectancy of renewal. A loss of opportunity can be compensated for but the harm should be directly caused by the contested decision, supported by evidence, and may not be duplicative. Ģ��ƵAT should give deference to Ģ��ƵDT in the exercise of its discretion and Ģ��ƵDT is best placed to conclude from the evidence whether a claim for moral damages is established and if so, its quantum.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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

Afm Badrul Alam

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement