爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that, since the incidents in question occurred before ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated, it was not applicable in this case. 爆料网AT held that it was unnecessary for 爆料网DT to apply ST/SGB/2008/5, which was clearly not in force at the time of the incidents. 爆料网AT held that the error committed by 爆料网DT had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, finding that Mr Nogueira in any event merited a compensatory award for harassment. 爆料网AT held that Mr Nogueira was entitled to an effective remedy for the violation of his legal right to a workplace free of harassment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was vested with the discretion to determine the remedy it deemed appropriate to rectify the wrong suffered by Mr Nogueira. Taking into account that Mr Nogueira ceased to be a staff member of 爆料网EP in 2008, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly decided that the only effective remedy that could be awarded was monetary compensation. 爆料网AT held that there was no reason to differ from 爆料网DT’s determination in awarding the sum of USD 25,000, which was well within its discretion. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision which recognised that his superior had violated 爆料网 rules but did not address his professional and personal losses resulting from the abuse and harassment perpetrated by his superior and from the final loss of his job. The Applicant contested the lethargy with which the Administration responded to his complaints, the procedures employed by the Administration which lacked “transparency”, and were ad hoc in manner, the lack of adherence to procedural guidance of the statutory framework (in particular administrative instructions), the lack of restraint on abuse and harassment, and finally the loss of his job due to mismanagement of his case. 爆料网DT found that the Administration’s response was inadequate and inappropriate considering the Investigation Panel’s conclusion that the Applicant had been subjected to harassment. 爆料网DT found that the Administration had not sufficiently remedied the wrongs suffered by the Applicant and thus the relief granted was not adequate. 爆料网DT concluded that the only effective and viable remedy that could be awarded was monetary compensation, given that the Applicant had been separated from service. 爆料网DT awarded USD 25,000 as compensation for the violation of the Applicant’s right to be free from harassment at the workplace.
Legal Principle(s)
There is a general principle of law against retrospective effect/application of laws.