爆料网

2020-爆料网AT-1008

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the Appellant’s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that it was well within 爆料网DT’s jurisdiction and that 爆料网DT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant’s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, 爆料网AT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her application to the first instance Tribunal so as to cover a claim for compensation based on legal and factual settings varying from those contained in her request for management evaluation. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant did not make any specific request for compensation for material damages or non-pecuniary damage (moral harm) as a consequence of the harm she suffered on account of her alleged constructive dismissal and that 爆料网DT, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to award this kind of compensation sua sponte. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT decision by majority (Judge Colgan dissenting).

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decisions not to return her to her original functions following temporary assignments and not to issue personnel actions to recognize her temporary assignments. 爆料网DT considered that the Administration had the discretion to reassign all staff members, whether as reassignment or as temporary assignment. 爆料网DT considered the Applicant’s claim of constructive dismissal not receivable ratione materiae because it had been raised for the first time in her 爆料网DT application, but not in her request for management evaluation. 爆料网DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature, not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. An appellant has the burden of satisfying 爆料网AT that the judgment he or she seeks to challenge is defective, and it follows that an appellant must identify the alleged defects and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective. 爆料网DT is not competent to award compensation of the specific kind, namely for actual pecuniary or economic loss, including loss of earnings, as well as non-pecuniary damage, procedural violations, stress, and moral injury, without a previous claim for such damage and compensation. If no request for such compensation is made, 爆料网DT lacks jurisdiction to award this kind of compensation sua sponte.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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.