2010-UNAT-042

2010-UNAT-042, Wu

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no reason to re-examine the judgments of the former Administrative Tribunal in judgment No. 1047, Helke (2002) and judgment No. 1122, Lopes Braga (2003). UNAT held that the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage did not amount to an award of punitive or exemplary damages designed to punish the Organisation and deter future wrongdoing. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the staff member suffered stress based on his submission. UNAT held that UNDT had committed no error in awarding compensation for the delay in notifying the staff member of the selection decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

UNDT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision not to select him for two Chinese Reviser posts at the P-4 level, seeking compensation. UNDT found, based on the Kasyanov judgment (judgment No. UNDT/2009/022), that the decision to choose two 30-day candidates instead of the Applicant, a 15-day candidate, violated Section 7. 1 of ST/AI/2006/3 and that, therefore, the decision not to appoint the Applicant was procedurally flawed. UNDT noted that, shortly after the Applicant had been notified that he had not been selected for the two subject posts, he was informed that he was successful in his application for another Chinese Reviser post at the P-4 level in Geneva and that he assumed the functions of this post on 1 September 2008. UNDT, therefore, found that the Applicant’s loss of opportunity was limited in scope and time. UNDT, nevertheless, awarded compensation in the amount of two months’ net base salary.

Legal Principle(s)

The Statute of the former Administrative Tribunal did not specifically prohibit the award of exemplary or punitive damages. Therefore, the former Administrative Tribunal’s award of compensation is not limited. Furthermore, under both Statutes, compensation can exceed two years’ net base salary in exceptional circumstances.

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :

Date of Judgement