Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the decision to close the investigation was improper as well as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s refusal to order rescission of that decision on account of the subject of the investigation having separated from the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the staff member¡¯s appeal, granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in part, and vacated the award of damages ordered in judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/007.