AV

UNDT/2010/070

UNDT/2010/070, Farraj

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Since the applicant, in a timely manner, addressed his requests to competent officials within the former system of internal justice and followed the advice received from them, it was beyond his control that he did not file his request for administrative review within the time limits; therefore, exceptional circumstances are given. In view of the provision of the letter of appointment quoted above, no termination was possible without keeping a thirty days notice period. The decision to terminate the appointment with immediate effect is in noncompliance with the applicant’s terms of appointment. The compensation the respondent may elect to pay as an alternative to the rescission should consider the duration of the appointment, had the unlawful decision not been taken. Compensation within article 10, paragraph 5 (b), of the UNDT Statute is restricted to financial means; if these are not requested, no other than financial compensation can be granted. Outcome: Rescission of the contested decision; compensation to be paid as an alternative to the rescission USD 45,000. No further compensation granted.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The applicant held a one year appointment of limited duration (ALD). His letter of appointment included a provision reading: “This appointment may be terminated prior to its expiration date in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations and the Staff Rules, in which case both parties will give thirty days written notice. Should UNDP terminate the appointment prior to its expiration, the Administrator of UNDP, in addition to the thirty days notice will provide compensation in lieu of notice period.” After 3 months the appointment was terminated by a letter effective the same day. Within the time limits for a request for review, the applicant requested assistance from the Office of the Joint Ombudsperson from which he finally received advice to contact the Panel of Counsel (PoC). The PoC told him a date for filing his request for administrative review, which the applicant respected. This request exceeded the time limit of former staff rule 111.2 (a). In the application before the Tribunal the applicant explicitly said that his request was not for financial compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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
Farraj
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type