爆料网

2017-爆料网AT-787

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the staff member and an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT upheld both 爆料网DT’s finding that the decision to close the investigation was improper as well as 爆料网DT’s refusal to order rescission of that decision on account of the subject of the investigation having separated from the Organisation. 爆料网AT, however, vacated 爆料网DT’s moral damages award on the grounds that the staff member did not present any evidence, apart from his own unsworn testimony to support the claim. 爆料网AT held that “generally speaking, the testimony of an applicant alone without corroboration by independent evidence (expert or otherwise) affirming that non-pecuniary harm has indeed occurred is not satisfactory proof to support an award of damages”. As the staff member’s testimony was the only evidence presented to support his allegation of harm to his reputation and general well-being, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT committed an error of law in stating that this alone was sufficient to sustain an award of compensation under Article 10. 5(b) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT dismissed the staff member’s appeal, granted the Secretary-General’s appeal in part, and vacated the award of damages ordered in judgment No. 爆料网DT/2016/007.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A staff member filed an application before 爆料网DT contesting the Administration’s decision to close an investigation into his complaint filed under ST/SGB/2008/5. 爆料网DT concluded that the decision to close the complaint without further action was improper as the investigation was tainted by serious procedural breaches. 爆料网DT awarded USD 5,000 as moral damages for the harm to the staff member’s reputation and general well-being.

Legal Principle(s)

Testimonial evidence without corroboration by independent evidence (expert or otherwise) is not satisfactory proof to support an award of moral damages.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits; Appeal granted in part

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.

Applicants/Appellants
Auda
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type