��DT/2016/001

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

Material facts: The Tribunal noted that the decision letter, the minutes of the ��CB meetings and the evidence of the Secretary of the ��CB showed that the ��CB acted on the understanding that in spite of its date, the Applicant��s 7 December 2010 inventory list had been prepared after the event and that there was no evidence of the Applicant��s personal possessions that predated it. The Tribunal found that such evidence existed and was available to the ��CB. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the ��CB did not take into account all material facts relating to the Applicant��s claim for compensation. Criterion for assessing compensation: The Tribunal noted that the ��CB decided that the Applicant��s inventory lists were dated and stamped after the loss and in the absence of corroboration and proof of loss recommendedapproval of the ��minimum necessary for mission life��. The Tribunal concluded that there is no written policy or rule that empowers the ��CB to invoke that test for approving compensation. Thus, the ��CB test did not conform with the entitlement of staff members either under staff rule 6.5 to ��reasonable compensation in the event of loss or damage to their personal effects determined to be directly attributable to the performance of duties on behalf of the �� or under paragraph 8 of ST/AI/149/Rev. 4 which refers to articles reasonably required by the staff member for day-to-day life under the conditions existing in the duty station. Legitimate expection: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not receive an express promise from the Secretary of the Local Claims Review Board that the affected staff members would be reimbursed for all their losses.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested a decision of the United Nations Claims Board (��CB) to deny his claim for compensation for personal effects looted and/or destroyed at his residence in Daloa following post-election violence in C?te d��Ivoire.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was unlawful because the decision0maker did not take into account a material fact and the ��CB recommended an award of compensation on the basis of a test that did not conform to that required by the Staff Rules and ST/AI/149/Rev.4. Accordingly, the Tribunal remanded the case back to ��CB for it to reconsider the Applicant's claim.

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

Syrja

Entity

Other peacekeeping mission

Case Number(s)

��DT/NBI/2014/021

Tribunal

��DT

Registry

Nairobi

Date of Judgement