AV

2021-UNAT-1133

2021-UNAT-1133, Secretary-General of UN

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNDT erred in fact in concluding that the ABCC had solely and exclusively rested upon the MSD’s medical report, and the UNDT exceeded its competence in stating that the time limit under Article 12 of Appendix D would only start to run from the moment when the psychological symptoms were so severe that the patient acknowledged that his/her syndrome no longer allowed him/her to fulfill his/her professional obligations. In the light of the facts that the Applicant was able to return to his high level of functioning at work after he had been transferred out of HATIS on 1 December 2013, that it was not necessary for him to “recount his trauma” in order to file an Appendix D claim, that the Applicant’s psychiatrist did not state that the Applicant was not able to fill out and file an Appendix D claim, and that he had invoked his PTSD several times in the context of pursuing advantages (sick leave, etc.), the Appeals Tribunal found that it was legitimate and reasonable for the Administration to not grant the Applicant a waiver of the four-month deadline to file an Appendix D claim on the basis of exceptional circumstances. The rescission of the contested decision by the UNDT and the subsequent remand of the compensation claim to the ABCC was erroneous.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

UNDT/2020/116/Corr.1, in which UNDT rescinded the decision by the ABCC to reject the Applicant’s Appendix D claim as time-barred, remanded the case to the ABCC and awarded the Applicant three-months’ net base salary for procedural delay as well as USD 20,000 for additional harm.

Legal Principle(s)

Under the applicable legislative framework, the Secretary-General is bestowed with the discretionary authority to determine whether to grant a waiver of the four-month deadline to file a compensation claim to the ABCC on the basis of exceptional circumstances. In compliance with the stated principles of judicial review, the exercise of discretion must be warranted on the basis of reliable facts and be reasoned in order for the Tribunals to have the ability to perform their judicial duty to review administrative decisions and to ensure protection of individuals, which otherwise would be compromised.

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
Secretary-General of UN
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Applicable Law