2015-惇蹋厙AT-599

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙DT erred in law and fact in ordering the refund of the recovery of the overpayments for two months. 惇蹋厙AT held that Ms Ten Have was aware of the overpayment in April 2013 and therefore, the general rule of Section 3. 1 of ST/AI//2009/1 was applicable and the recovery of the two months overpayments was not excessive since the limit of two years could not be applied due to the staff member＊s awareness of the overpayments as of April 2013, regardless of her previous ignorance or bona fide. 惇蹋厙AT also held that as no request for compensation for distress was made, 惇蹋厙DT lacked jurisdiction to award moral compensation sua sponte and that, even if the compensation had been requested, it would not have been awarded in the instant case as the notification and recovery process did not cause any injury to Ms Ten Have＊s rights as a staff member. 惇蹋厙AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 惇蹋厙DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ms Ten Have contested the decision to recover overpayments of a monthly residential security allowance (MRSA). 惇蹋厙DT upheld the decision, however, it ordered the refund of the recovery for the first two months of overpayment as opposed to the overpayment in full, and awarded moral damages.

Legal Principle(s)

惇蹋厙DT lacks jurisdiction to award moral compensation sua sponte without a claim or request having been made.

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 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

Ten Have

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement