ż

2012-UNAT-204

2012-UNAT-204, Kamal

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held, in agreement with the Secretary-General, agreed that there were no grounds to award compensation. UNAT noted that there was no administrative decision being contested in this case, as both parties accepted the decision to promote Ms Kamal and she had not identified any illegality that could lead to an award of compensation. UNAT found that the delay in completing the selection process could not be considered a valid ground for compensation, since the circumstances of the case did not show any negligence or violation of specific rules by the Administration. UNAT held that, in light of the moral satisfaction arising from the outcome of the selection process, which was fair and competitive, Ms Kamal could not have suffered special damage from this opportunity. UNAT allowed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ms Kamal filed an application, complaining about the circumstances surrounding her promotion. UNDT dismissed her claim that the Administration’s decision to suspend the selection process, and to withdraw the recommendation to the Central Review Body to promote Ms Kamal, was illegal. UNDT also dismissed Ms Kamal’s claim that the decision to cancel the vacancy announcement for a second time was unjustified and harmed her. However, UNDT found that the inordinate delay and failure to provide her with a timely response to her enquiries caused her much anxiety and distress. ” UNDT awarded compensation to Ms Kamal for the emotional distress and anxiety suffered.

Legal Principle(s)

A delay in completing the selection process cannot be considered a valid ground for compensation when the circumstances of the case do not show any negligence or violation of specific rules by the Administration.

Outcome
Appeal granted

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