2015-惇蹋厙AT-602

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT held that the allegations of irregularity raised by the Appellant were supported by evidence. 惇蹋厙AT noted that it was hard to comprehend how the Appellant＊s post suddenly became redundant when at the same time around 75 per cent of its functions were to be transferred to a consultant. 惇蹋厙AT further noted that even though the new organisational structure was not approved until September 2013, as early as June 2013, the abolition of the Appellant＊s post had already been decided and was communicated to him by his supervisor, against whom the Appellant filed a complaint of abuse of power. 惇蹋厙AT held that following the Appellant＊s request for decision review, the Administration was obligated to provide clear and sufficient reasons justifying the lawfulness of its conduct but failed to do so. 惇蹋厙AT held that the alleged conflict of interest required a more extensive and detailed consideration and discussion by 惇蹋厙RWA DT. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT erred in finding that the non-renewal of the Appellant＊s appointment and 惇蹋厙RWA＊s related actions were not tainted by irregularities or improper motives, in breach of the Appellant＊s rights. 惇蹋厙AT also held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT erred in law by holding that the application against the decision to recruit a consultant was not receivable. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT failed to declare that his employment was affected. 惇蹋厙AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 惇蹋厙RWA DT judgment. 惇蹋厙AT ordered the Commissioner-General to pay the Appellant compensation in the amount of three months＊ net base salary.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decisions to extend his appointment for 3 months, abolish his post and recruit a consultant. 惇蹋厙RWA DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

惇蹋厙AT will not award compensation for moral damages without specific evidence supporting the claim.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Zamel

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement