¹ú²úAV

2017-UNAT-791

2017-UNAT-791, Ho

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that the appeal was receivable as the Appellant had partially prevailed before UNDT and was entitled to file an appeal to pursue the modification, annulment, or vacation of the impugned judgment. Noting that the crux of the matter before it was the issue of the exchange rate used to calculate the repatriation grant, UNAT held that there was no fault in the UNDT finding that the correct rate was applied because the applicable rate was that which applied on the date of receipt of the proof of relocation. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the UNDT committed any error of fact or law. On the Appellant’s claim for interest on her repatriation grant for the period of delay, UNAT noted that UNDT declined to award interest because the Appellant had already received a payment greater than she would have received if she had been paid in a timely fashion (a year before) with interest, and therefore the Appellant did not suffer any material damage. UNAT held that there was no reason to differ from the UNDT’s conclusion on interest on the basis that findings of fact of UNDT can only be disturbed when there is an error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, which was not the case. On moral damages, UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any error of law in its assessment of the compensation award, which UNAT found to be fair and reasonable. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual finding on the part of UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the delay in paying her a repatriation grant and requested material and moral damages. UNDT dismissed her request for material damages and awarded her USD 500 for moral damages in connection with the Administration’s 12-month delay in payment.

Legal Principle(s)

The purpose of compensation is to place an appellant in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its contractual obligations. Compensation may never give rise to undue enrichment.

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.

Applicants/Appellants
Ho
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type