UNDT/2016/092

UNDT/2016/092, Baracungana

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Interpretation of art. 10.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal - The question arises whether the Tribunal should seek and obtain the concurrence of the Secretary-General before correcting a procedural error in the decision making process of the ABCC or the Secretary-General himself. The Tribunal in the circumstances of the present case is not prepared to allow its power of judicial review to be circumscribed by art. 10.4. It is not deemed that the concurrence of the Secretary-General is necessary to take the appropriate remedial measure if this is found to be necessary. The Secretary-General as Respondent is entitled to have his due process rights respected and this has been done here as he has filed a reply to the claim and is legally represented.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

On 22 September 2014, the Applicant filed an Application before the Tribunal challenging the decision made on behalf of the Secretary-General with regard to his claim for compensation under Appendix D to the Staff Rules and Staff Regulations. The Tribunal referred the case back to the ABCC with a direction that it follows its own procedure on its composition and, whatever decision it reaches, to communicate that decision to the Applicant with reasons. The Applicant’s claim dates back to 2011 and the delay in the determination of his claim will further be compounded by a reconsideration of his claim by the ABCC. In the circumstances the Tribunal awards the Applicant one month’s net base salary, as permitted by art. 10.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

Only financial compensation.

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

Baracungana

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :