爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
On appeal, 爆料网AT limited its consideration to the issue of the amount of compensation awarded in lieu of rescission and the amount of compensation awarded for harm. On the issue of in lieu compensation, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to advance any error of law or of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT noted that in lieu compensation is not intended to compensate for the possible harm suffered by the injured person, as that is the specific aim of compensation for harm. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had the discretion to fix this amount as a generic sum and was not bound by any detailed or intricate calculations involving contribution to the Provident Fund or other possible allowances. On the issue of compensation for harm, 爆料网AT recalled that it was insufficient to demonstrate illegality to obtain compensation; the claimant bore the burden of proof. In addition, 爆料网AT recalled that the harm had to have been directly caused by the administrative decision in question. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s interpretation of his laboratory reports showing a fluctuation in blood sugar level had to have been corroborated by additional evidence in order to support his claim for compensation for harm. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had neither requested leave to present such evidence nor presented the evidence itself. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of any harm resulting from the impugned decision. 爆料网AT found no error in the 爆料网RWA DT judgment pertaining to compensation for harm. On the Appellant’s claim that 爆料网RWA DT erred in not having referred the case to the Commissioner-General of 爆料网RWA for action to enforce accountability, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant did not seek such a referral in his 爆料网RWA DT application. 爆料网AT held that previous decisions regarding submissions of alleged prejudice against him inside the Gaza Field Health Program did not fall within the scope the present case. 爆料网AT found no grounds for awarding costs against the Appellant as there was no intentional or manifest abuse of the appeal process. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested his non-selection for a position. 爆料网RWA DT found that the selection process had been tainted by irregularities and bias. 爆料网RWA DT ordered that the non-selection decision be rescinded, or in the alternative, the Respondent pay the Applicant USD 2,363. 76 (in lieu compensation). 爆料网RWA DT further held that the Applicant’s request for moral damages for psychological harm was not supported by evidence and therefore did not award moral damages.
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 Organisation complied with its contractual obligations. In-lieu compensation is an alternative to rescission or specific performance and should be as equivalent as possible to what the person concerned would have received, had the illegality not occurred. In-lieu compensation is not intended to compensate for all the possible harm suffered by the injured person, as this is the specific aim of compensation for harm.