����AV

The UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal and granted Mr. Rolli’s cross-appeal in part.  The UNAT found that the rescission of the termination decision ordered by the UNDT was “pointless” since by the time the case had reached the UNDT, Mr. Rolli’s post had been abolished. The UNAT accordingly held that in these circumstances, compensation had to fall under Article 10(5)(b) and be for harm caused by the unlawful decision.  The harms he suffered included the loss of his remuneration and benefits (education and pension entitlements), the specific losses resulting of his ceasing to be based in Switzerland, as well as the non-economic (moral) consequences of the wrong done to him. The UNAT found that the UNDT erred in setting as the end point for the calculation of compensatory remedies the date of the expiry of Mr. Rolli’s appointment. The UNAT found that since only four months later, Mr. Rolli’s role was abolished altogether, it was probable that had Mr. Rolli not been dismissed wrongfully, he would probably have continued to occupy that position for an additional four months. For the purpose of the calculation of remedies, it was therefore that later date which should be used. Regarding the pension entitlements, the UNAT found that had Mr. Rolli continued to work for the WMO until the abolition of the post, he would have attained the age of 55 years entitling him to take early retirement. In these circumstances he would have been able to choose between deferred retirement benefit, early retirement, and withdrawal settlement.  The UNAT compared those choices to his position at the time of his dismissal where he was only entitled to a withdrawal settlement. The UNAT found that the most just compensatory award to make for pension entitlement losses in this case was the sum representing what would have been the WMO’s contributions to Mr. Rolli’s Pension Fund for the period from the date of his dismissal until the abolition of his post plus 10 per cent of that sum. The UNAT found no error in the education allowance compensation, except that, for reasons set out in relation to other remedies, the end date of this period should be the date of the abolition of his post. Turning to the costs for legal representation, the UNAT found that the UNDT correctly concluded that Mr. Rolli had no alternative, if he was to be professionally advised and represented before the JAB, but to engage private counsel. Such expenditure on legal services was plainly a necessary financial consequence (loss) attributable to the wrongful decision that he contested. The UNDT however erred in awarding only USD3,000 while Mr. Rolli’s legal costs before he could obtain the services of OSLA at no cost to himself amounted to approximately CHF (Swiss francs) 21,000 and directed that he be paid that as an element of his Article 10(5)(b) compensation.  Turning to Mr. Rolli’s claim to compensation for loss of tax credit on the acquisition of a motor vehicle, the UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in rejecting this claim. The UNAT found no error in the UNDT’s reduction from its compensation awards for loss of remuneration earnings received by Mr. Rolli following his dismissal until the date of the abolition of his post (but less any relocation expenses reimbursed). The UNAT held that if the compensation awards exceeded two years’ net base salary of Mr. Rolli, it was satisfied that his, and his dismissal’s circumstances, were exceptional, thereby justifying exceeding this cap.