Judgment No. 4303
Decision
1. WHO shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 25,000 United States dollars, subject to any deduction as discussed in consideration 8 of the judgment. 2. WHO shall also pay the complainant 6,000 dollars for costs. 3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the unlawful abolition of her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; abolition of post
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he impugned decision was based on an affirmative finding that the decision to abolish the complainant’s post was tainted by illegality including prejudice towards the complainant. In a case such as the present, a challenge to a final administrative decision is a challenge to the decision itself and at least ordinarily not the reasons on which the decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 3997, consideration 7), nor to any alleged procedural flaws leading to a decision which vindicates the complainant’s grievance.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3997
Keywords
cause of action; impugned decision
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant [...] seeks the disclosure of “all documentation related to the RMRC report”. However, the Tribunal considers itself to be sufficiently well informed on the case by the written submissions and thus does not deem it necessary to grant this request.
Keywords
disclosure of evidence
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant [...] appears to argue that the amount awarded by way of moral damages was inadequate, though she contests the notion that it is merely a question of amount and submits that it involves, additionally, recognition of “lifelong harm done”. But the relief the Tribunal can provide is confined to “compensation for injury” in accordance with the terms of Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords
moral injury; competence of tribunal
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant challenges the actual amount awarded by the Organization. While due regard should be paid to the assessment made by the HBA and adopted by the Director-General, an award of 8,000 dollars does not appear to the Tribunal to be, in all the circumstances, adequate compensation for the unlawful abolition of the complainant’s post. The abolition of the post was not for legitimate reasons and had the effect of removing the complainant from the field of expertise she had developed over several decades. It can be inferred that the sense of hurt and resentment she experienced was considerable.
Keywords
moral injury
|