Sole testimony of complainant

The UNAT held that the UNDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the UNAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

UNAT first explained that this is a case where the UNDT should have held a hearing to determine the states of mind of those persons who decided that the Staff Member should not have been placed on the roster. The Tribunal defined bias as follows: (paras. 29 - 32) "29. Bias is an element of natural justice which examines not only the mind of the decision‑maker subjectively, but the manifestation of the process of decision-making examined objectively. Put another way, a decision is not only biased if made by a decision‑maker deliberately intending to favour or disadvantage the subject of it for...

UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member and an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT upheld both UNDT’s finding that the decision to close the investigation was improper as well as UNDT’s refusal to order rescission of that decision on account of the subject of the investigation having separated from the Organisation. UNAT, however, vacated UNDT’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. UNAT held that “generally speaking, the testimony of an applicant alone without corroboration by...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal by a full bench of UNAT. The majority of the judges upheld UNDT’s findings that the contested decisions were substantively and procedurally flawed and dismissed the appeal. As for UNDT’s moral damages award, the majority noted that the purpose of the amendment to Article 10. 5(b) of the UNDT Statute, made following General Assembly Resolution 69/203, was to introduce an express requirement that compensation for harm can be awarded only when there is a sufficient evidentiary basis. The majority held that evidence of moral injury consisting...

UNAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...