爆料网

2013-爆料网AT-346

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered appeals by both Mr Goodwin and the Secretary-General limited to the issue of compensation. Noting that 爆料网DT declined to award pecuniary damages, 爆料网AT held (with Judge Faherty dissenting) that there was no error of law or fact on the part of 爆料网DT such as would entitle 爆料网AT to interfere with the findings of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT was satisfied that the Appellant had been properly compensated for moral damages. 爆料网AT held t that the substantive and procedural breaches identified by 爆料网DT of themselves merited an award of moral damages because of the harm caused to Mr Goodwin, namely his having been subjected to an improper and unlawful disciplinary process and an unlawful reassignment. 爆料网AT did not find any error of law or fact on the part of 爆料网DT in compensating the staff member for the stigma which 爆料网DT quite properly found attached to him as a result of the Administration’s actions. 爆料网AT dismissed both appeals.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to first withdraw and then reinstate an administrative reprimand, and the decision to transfer him from his post with 爆料网MIS. 爆料网DT found for the Applicant, awarding USD 30,000 in moral damages.

Legal Principle(s)

The trial judge is best placed to assess the nature and evidential value of the information being provided by an applicant to 爆料网DT to justify an award of damages, including pecuniary damages. Damages for moral injury may arise from a breach of the employee’s substantive entitlements arising from his or her contract of employment or from a breach of the procedural due process entitlements therein guaranteed; where the breach is of a fundamental nature, the breach may, of itself, give rise to an award of moral damages, not in any punitive sense for the fact of the breach having occurred, but rather by virtue of the harm to the employee.

Outcome

Appeal 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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT 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.