UNDT/2011/062

UNDT/2011/062, Diara

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the Administration had erred in giving to the Applicant an appointment whose expiration date went well beyond his retirement age but that it duly rectified this error by separating him from service. It also found that the Applicant had been sufficiently compensated by the Respondent. Nature of contractual relationship: The contracts by which the Organization employs staff members are not regular contracts, given the particular relationship established between staff members and the Organization, and they are for the most part governed by the Staff Regulations and Rules. Administration’s duty to correct its own errors: The Administration is bound to correct its own errors as soon as possible and, when no fault can be held against the staff member, it ought to bear the entire responsibility for those errors and compensate the staff member accordingly. Costs: The Tribunal may award costs against a party only where it is established that a party has manifestly abused the proceedings before it. In cases transferred from the old system of administration of justice, it may also award reasonable costs only if they are demonstrated to have been unavoidable and exceed the normal expenses of litigation before the Tribunal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

With effect from 1 January 2004, the Applicant, who was then aged 59 and was due to retire at 60, was given a three-year fixed-term appointment. On 7 March 2005, he was informed that he was about to reach the mandatory retirement age, and, as a result, he was given a new appointment, whose expiration date was 30 April 2005. The Applicant challenged the decision to implement his separation from service in breach of contract and he was eventually compensated in the amount of three months’ net base salary for the moral injury he suffered as well as for the late notice of his reaching retirement age. Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

Outcome

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Diara

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :