2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1040

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in law, and followed binding Ģ��ƵAT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant��s testimony. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before Ģ��ƵDT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had failed to do so and that there was no obligation on Ģ��ƵDT to request this evidence. Ģ��ƵAT held that absent exceptional circumstances, additional evidence (in this case, medical certificates) could not be accepted into evidence on appeal as the Appellant knew the need for the additional evidence and had had the opportunity to present it to Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the Administration��s decision not to renew his appointment. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Respondent��s refusal to give reasons for the impugned decision was unlawful and that the non-renewal was due to an improper purpose. Ģ��ƵDT partially granted the application and awarded compensation for financial damage for the unlawful separation. It declined to award moral damages, as the Applicant relied solely on his testimony to support his claim.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT has discretion in assessing compensation and is best placed as the trier of fact to assess the nature and weight of the evidence before it. Harm for which compensation is requested must be supported by evidence beyond a staff member��s testimony alone. There is no obligation on Ģ��ƵDT to request evidence from the parties, particularly when both are represented by counsel. Ģ��ƵDT must follow Ģ��ƵAT precedents.

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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

Robinson

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement