2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1069

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Civic limited to the extent to which Ģ��ƵDT dismissed her claim of compensation for pecuniary damage (loss of opportunity). On loss of opportunity, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT 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. Ģ��ƵAT 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, Ģ��ƵAT did not allow for compensation for pecuniary damages. On moral damages (non-pecuniary damages), Ģ��ƵAT 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. Ģ��ƵAT held that compensation should be awarded to alleviate the harm if it was supported by evidence. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT 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. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no need for medical expertise to conclude that continuous anxiety can be harmful to one��s health. Ģ��ƵAT held that the amount of compensation awarded by Ģ��ƵDT 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. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal, dismissed the cross-appeal, and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT 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. Ģ��ƵDT partially granted the application. Ģ��ƵDT was satisfied that the impugned decision resulted in non-pecuniary damage to the Appellant. Ģ��ƵDT 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.

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

Civic

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement