2017-��AT-742

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT considered the Secretary-General��s appeal by a full bench of ��AT. The majority of the judges upheld ��DT��s findings that the contested decisions were substantively and procedurally flawed and dismissed the appeal. As for ��DT��s moral damages award, the majority noted that the purpose of the amendment to Article 10. 5(b) of the ��DT Statute, made following General Assembly Resolution 69/203, was to introduce an express requirement that compensation for harm can be awarded only when there is a sufficient evidentiary basis. The majority held that evidence of moral injury consisting exclusively of the testimony of the complainant, if credible, reliable, and satisfactory in material respects, may be sufficient to discharge the evidentiary burden. The three dissenting opinions took the view that evidence consisting exclusively of the complainant��s testimony was not sufficient without corroboration by independent evidence (expert or otherwise). The majority included one concurring opinion which agreed with the three dissenting judges on the requirements of compensation but joined the majority in the outcome of the case.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A staff member at the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) contested the decisions to remove his designation as Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) at MINUSTAH and to deny him the required designation to take up the post of CPO at another duty station. ��DT rescinded the decisions finding they were taken in reaction to allegations that the staff member had failed to properly exercise his delegated authority and without due process or substantiation. ��DT declined to reinstate the staff member��s designation but ordered USD 50,000 in non-pecuniary damages with interest for the stigmatization, reputational damage, stress, anxiety, and moral injury caused to the staff member.

Legal Principle(s)

Harm for which compensation is requested must be supported by evidence. A staff member��s testimony alone is not sufficient to present evidence supporting harm under Articles 9. 1(b) of the ��AT Statute and 10. 5(b) of the ��DT Statute.

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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.

Applicants/Appellants

Kallon

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement