��DT/2016/004

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The ��DT found that the main legal issue was whether ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility and hardship scheme) applied to the counting of assignments that the Applicant undertook before the instruction went into effect on 1 July 2011. The ��DT found that ST/AI/2011/6 could not be applied retroactively to assignments that took place before it went into effect. The ��DT further found that the revised staff rule 4.8(b), which allows for different counting of the Applicant��s assignments, was applicable only to assignments starting on or after 1 July 2009, and was not retroactively applicable to prior assignments, which continued to be governed by the terms and conditions established at their beginning. The ��DT concluded that the Administration correctly counted the number of the Applicant��s assignments. The ��DT further found that, although there was a delay in the Administration��s response to the Applicant��s inquiries regarding the matter, the Applicant did not adduce evidence of damages caused by the delay. The ��DT dismissed the application.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant, a staff member in the �� Secretariat, contested the decision to grant her mobility count of H-4 instead of H-5 for the purpose of calculating mobility allowance.

Legal Principle(s)

Retroactive v. retrospective application of law: For all intents and purposes, retroactive and retrospective are synonyms and no meaningful difference exists in the legal understanding of the two words, as also established in the binding Judgments of the ��AT. Therefore, ST/AI/2011/6 cannot be applied retroactively.Compensation: as the Appeals Tribunal stated in Antaki 2010-��AT-095 ��not every violation will necessarily lead to an award of compensation. Compensation may only be awarded if it has been established that the staff member actually suffered damages.

Outcome

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 ��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

Yazaki

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement