2018-��AT-817

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The Secretary-General appealed. ��AT held that ��DT erred on a question of law when it concluded that the procedure was flawed on the basis that it was not sufficient for the Assistant Secretary-General/Controller to countersign and approve the ��CB recommendation and that a separate and reasoned decision was necessary for the regularity of the administrative procedure. ��AT held that ��DT erred in law in finding that there was a procedural delay and, therefore, granting compensation. ��AT granted the appeal and vacated the ��DT judgment insofar as it awarded compensation for the procedural delay.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Kisa contested the decision not to compensate him for the loss of his personal property attributable to service, the unlawful failure of the �� to independently review and take a reasoned out and separate administrative decision from the recommendations of the United Nations Claims Board (��CB), and unlawful violations of due process. ��DT granted the application in part. ��DT found that the claim for damages was not receivable since Mr Kisa had failed to take any reasonable steps to receive suitable compensation from his insurance as required by Sections 12 and 14(b)(ii) of ST/AI/149/Rev. 4. ��DT found, however, that when the contested decision was returned for ��DT��s consideration, a procedural error was made, namely that the Assistant Secretary-General/Controller had not taken a separate and reasoned decision for almost 6 months. ��DT awarded Mr Kisa compensation as a relief for the procedural delays.

Legal Principle(s)

In the absence of an express provision to this effect, no law requires the decision-maker to make a distinct pronouncement, instead of simply referring to and approving a preceding reasoned recommendation, which also ensures the necessary transparency of the decision. If the decision-maker fully approves a preceding recommendation and has nothing to add to its reasoning, there is no need for additional arguments, unless that is required by the applicable rules or regulations, or the decision ultimately departs from the recommendation.

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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

Kisia

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement