äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

Compensation in lieu is ¡°not related at all to the economic loss suffered¡± (see Nega 2023-UNAT-1393,para. 62) and there is no duty to mitigate loss as a precondition for receiving in lieu compensation (see Zachariah 2017-UNAT-764). It is, according to the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, an option that the Respondent can take instead of reinstating the Applicant in the service. Therefore, pecuniary loss or gain is not a relevant factor.

Consistent with the requirement to act fairly, justly and transparently, the Respondent bears the burden to show that the Applicant did not possess the core and functional...

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...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law, and followed binding UNAT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant¡¯s testimony. UNAT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before UNDT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...

UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and granted the staff member¡¯s cross-appeal, in part. UNAT found that the UNDT properly took into account several facts that were relevant in determining whether there had been sexual exploitation and abuse of vulnerability or trust. The Tribunal reasoned the burden on the Administration was to show on clear and convincing evidence that the staff member¡¯s conduct fell in one of the following five categories: (i) he abused a position of vulnerability for sexual purposes; (ii) he abused a position of differential power for sexual purposes; (iii) he...