2015-惇蹋厙AT-514

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙DT correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision to suspend him without pay. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙DT was alert to the injury which the prolonged delay caused the Appellant. On the Appellant＊s complaint that 惇蹋厙RWA DT did not address his complaint regarding the deduction by 惇蹋厙RWA from his personal Provident Fund contributions upon his dismissal, apparently, to recoup an overpayment, 惇蹋厙AT held that there was no merit in the complaint and the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact on the part of the 惇蹋厙RWA DT when it determined these deductions constituted a separate administrative decision, which could not be reviewed in the context of the application before the 惇蹋厙DT. 惇蹋厙AT found no merit in the other claims put forward by the Appellant. Noting that 惇蹋厙RWA DT awarded compensation beyond the two years＊ net base salary, 惇蹋厙AT held that the award fell well within the bounds of reasonableness and that the award was fair and reasonable. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙RWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to suspend him without pay and his subsequent summary dismissal for serious misconduct. 惇蹋厙RWA DT found that the decision to suspend him was not receivable, the summary dismissal was lawful, and awarded moral damages of 25 months＊ net base salary for the excessive delay.

Legal Principle(s)

The first instance tribunal is the body best placed to assess the level of damages to be awarded in any particular case. In the absence of a compelling argument that 惇蹋厙DT erred on a question of law, or on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, 惇蹋厙AT will not lightly interfere with the findings of the first instance tribunal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

Only financial compensation; Only financial compensation.

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙AT 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

Abu Nada

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement