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 the Secretary-General’s submissions were valid in most aspects. 爆料网AT held that the award of 21 months’ compensation was excessive as it was not reasonable to assume that Ms Belkhabbaz’s fixed-term appointment would have been extended for longer than one year, finding that an award of 12 months’ remuneration would be adequate compensation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence and erred in law by awarding pecuniary damages relating to Applicant’s placement on sick leave with half pay. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred by awarding separate compensation for the alleged non-extension of the contract pending the completion of the rebuttal process. 爆料网AT held that the award of non-pecuniary damages for non-extension pending rebuttal was duplicative of the 爆料网DT’s award of USD 40,000 for non-pecuniary damages for non-renewal as Ms Belkhabbaz did not suffer any additional compensable harm. 爆料网AT reduced the amount for compensation for moral harm to USD 20,000. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal in part and modified the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to extend her contract pending the rebuttal of her fourth performance appraisal. Simultaneously, the Applicant filed an application for interim measures seeking to suspend the execution of the contested decision. Further, the Applicant filed an application challenging the decision not to renew her contract upon its expiry. 爆料网DT addressed the two separately filed applications as they were inextricably linked. With respect to the contested decision not to extend the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment, 爆料网DT found there were no good reasons to depart from the principle of renewing the contract pending completion of the rebuttal process. As for the contested decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment upon its expiry, 爆料网DT found that the Applicant’s performance had not been adequately and properly evaluated during her third and fourth performance appraisal cycles as the First Reporting Officer had been biased against her and the Second Reporting Officer had not taken sufficient measures to ensure an objective assessment of her performance. 爆料网DT considered that the third reason for the contested decision, namely that the Applicant had only partially met performance expectations for two consecutive years, could not stand. 爆料网DT accepted the application and ordered the payment of pecuniary damages to the Applicant. 爆料网DT further ordered payment to the Applicant of non-pecuniary damages arising from the significant stress she experienced because of the non-renewal of her contract and for the non-pecuniary harm the Applicant suffered as a direct result of the decision not to extend her appointment pending completion of the rebuttal process.
Legal Principle(s)
The award of non-pecuniary damages for non-extension of the contract pending the rebuttal of performance appraisal is duplicative of an award of non-pecuniary damages for non-renewal of the contract upon its expiry when the Applicant did not suffer any additional compensable harm.