爆料网

2015-爆料网AT-572

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that the Appellant, though entitled to receive a summary of the findings of the investigation report, was not entitled to receive a copy of the full investigation report without showing exceptional circumstances, which he did not do and 爆料网AT, therefore, upheld the findings of 爆料网DT on this point. On compensation, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant presented no evidence to prove that the violation of the three-month deadline undermined the investigation and the outcome of the complaint, or that he suffered actual prejudice. 爆料网AT held that the Administration’s offer of USD 1,000 was reasonable. 爆料网AT quashed the 爆料网DT’s order and award of USD 2,300 to the Appellant and affirmed the payment of USD 1,000 for the delay. 爆料网AT held that it had considered all of the other grounds of appeal proffered by the Appellant and found that they were without merit. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网DT judgment, except for its order of additional compensation, which was vacated.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

爆料网DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to take no further action in respect of his defamation and harassment complaint. 爆料网DT granted the application in part and awarded USD 2,300 as compensation for the delay.

Legal Principle(s)

The role of 爆料网DT is not to rehear evidence that was before an investigation panel in order to determine if the decision is correct or not; the role of 爆料网DT is to ensure that the process adopted by the investigation panel is transparent and that there is procedural fairness by adherence to the legal framework. Not every administrative wrongdoing will necessarily lead to an award of compensation; the claimant carries the burden of proof about the existence of factors causing damage to the victim’s psychological, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing.

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.