爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Civic limited to the extent to which 爆料网DT dismissed her claim of compensation for pecuniary damage (loss of opportunity). On loss of opportunity, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err when it found that the irregularity of cancelling the Appellant’s performance appraisal and the failure to promptly issue another one did not suffice to demonstrate a significant chance or realistic prospect of her retaining another position within the Organisation. 爆料网AT held that the irregularity was inconsequential for the purposes of the Appellant’s selection for any of the posts for which she applied, in particular since the evidence showed that the Appellant’s Personal History Profile had been shared with the hiring managers and, thus, the lack of a performance appraisal “was not a concern” in the selection procedures. Therefore, 爆料网AT did not allow for compensation for pecuniary damages. On moral damages (non-pecuniary damages), 爆料网AT held that, by failing to take protective measures earlier and thus exposing the Appellant to harmful working conditions for a considerable amount of time, the Administration failed in its duty of care. 爆料网AT held that compensation should be awarded to alleviate the harm if it was supported by evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in concluding that, as a result of the illegal decisions by the Administration, the Appellant experienced insult to her dignity, humiliation before her colleagues, impossibility to fully utilize her qualifications and insecurity of her job, leading to disappointment, demoralization, anxiety and a negative impact on her physical health and that these effects constitute compensable non-pecuniary damage. 爆料网AT held that there was no need for medical expertise to conclude that continuous anxiety can be harmful to one’s health. 爆料网AT held that the amount of compensation awarded by 爆料网DT was compatible with the jurisprudence, given the context in which the illegality took place and its detrimental effects on the Appellant’s state of mind, dignity, and personhood. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal, dismissed the cross-appeal, and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested her alleged constructive dismissal due to a manager’s decision to deprive her of her core functions. 爆料网DT partially granted the application. 爆料网DT was satisfied that the impugned decision resulted in non-pecuniary damage to the Appellant. 爆料网DT awarded six months’ net base salary as compensation for moral damage.
Legal Principle(s)
Corroborating evidence is needed to support a claim for moral or non-pecuniary harm, but there is no requirement for it to be of a medical nature.