¹ú²úAV

2017-UNAT-720, Haroun

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to contesting the award by UNDT of three months’ net base salary as compensation for damage to Ms Haroun’s career prospects. UNAT held that UNDT committed an error in law by awarding compensation for damage to career prospects on the basis of Ms Haroun’s separation from service. UNAT noted that the separation from service was the sole ground for awarding compensation for damage to career prospects but that there was no evidence on the record with respect to the exact reasons for separating Ms Haroun from service and the circumstances of such separation. UNAT held that the Secretary-General, in violation of his right to due process and a fair hearing, was not given an opportunity to present his views on the possible reliance of the UNDT on the separation for an award of damages. UNAT granted the Secretary-General’s motion to reject additional evidence related to the separation submitted after closing arguments. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment to the extent that it awarded compensation for damage to career prospects.

Accountability referral: The UNDT referred Mr. Arumugham and Ms. Nandkumar for accountability for having either deliberately ignored or feigned ignorance of the pertinent principles governing the role of a manager or supervisor contained in the 2014 Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. The referral for accountability was not appealed and the UNAT did not take a decision on it.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to reassign her. UNDT held that the decision to reassign her was unlawful. As UNDT had been informed that the Applicant had been separated in the interim (after closing submissions), UNDT awarded compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

Adjudication of a case based on information not on the record may violate the other party’s right to due process and a fair hearing.

Outcome
Appeal granted

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.

Applicants/ Appellants
Haroun
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Applicable Law