����AV

Considering that the Respondent did not contest the merits of the allegations as set out in the applications, the Tribunal found that the contested decisions, i.e., to remove the Applicant from his position, to place him on SLWFP and not to renew his appointment were unlawful. Therefore, the only legal issue that remained for adjudication before the Tribunal was that of remedies. The Tribunal considered that the decision to remove the Applicant from his position was, in fact, subsumed in the ultimate decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, having found that both decisions were unlawful, the Tribunal ordered the rescission of the decision not to renew the Applicant’s appointment. It also ordered the rescission of the decision to place the Applicant on SLWFP, which was also found to be unlawful as it was triggered by the Applicant’s removal from his post. The Tribunal noted that an amount of compensation to be paid as an alternative to the rescission of the contested decision shall only be set in relation to the non-renewal decision since it concerns a matter of appointment, pursuant to art. 10.5(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. Considering the particular circumstances of the present case and the fact that the Applicant lost the chance to have his appointment renewed for another year due to the unlawful decision to remove him from his position, the Tribunal found adequate, fair and reasonable to award compensation in lieu of rescission in an amount equal to one year’s net base salary, based on the pay that the Applicant was drawing on the date of the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Concerning the decision to place the Applicant on SLWFP, the sequence of facts showed that from the time the Applicant was directed to leave his duty station until the expiry of his contract, he was paid his salary and related entitlements. Therefore, even if the decision to place him on SLWFP was unlawful, he did not suffer any loss. Consequently, no compensation was awarded in this regard. In Case No. UNDT/GVA/2017/112, the Applicant claimed the payment of a security evacuation allowance, repatriation grant and travel expenses. The Applicant’s request to be paid security evacuation allowances was rejected. The Tribunal also noted that the Applicant had already been paid his repatriation grant and that the Respondent had committed to pay his return travel expenses, therefore the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s requests in this regard had become moot. In Case No. UNDT/GVA/2018/096, the Applicant claimed the payment of a termination indemnity as a result of the abolition of his post. The Tribunal clarified that the alleged abolition of the Applicant’s post, if it ever occurred, was not the contested decision in the present case and consequently, the Tribunal did not address this matter. It also found that the Applicant was separated from service upon the expiration of his fixed-term appointment rather than terminated. Therefore, the Applicant’s request in this respect was rejected. The Applicant’s request for moral damages was rejected absent any evidence to support his claim. His request for legal fees was also rejected as there was no evidence of “manifest abuse of proceedings”. The Tribunal granted the Applicant’s request to be provided with a certification of service.