2018-UNAT-864, Delaunay
UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal, requesting compensation for moral damages, compensation for costs for legal representation, and request for interest. UNAT referred to Article 9(1)(b) of the UNAT Statute, which states that compensation may only be awarded for harm suffered that is supported by evidence. UNAT agreed with the ICJ Registrar that the ICJ was not responsible for the delays, but rather demonstrated good faith in bringing about an arrangement favourable to the Appellant. UNAT accordingly rejected the Appellant’s request for compensation. UNAT also referred to Article 9(2) of the UNAT Statute, which states that the Appeals Tribunal may only award costs against a party when that party has manifestly abused the appeals process. UNAT held that the ICJ Registrar did not manifestly abuse the appeals process such as to merit an award of costs for legal representation. UNAT further held that the Appellant was estopped from claiming interest because she did not challenge the Pension Fund’s decision and rejected her claim for interest. UNAT accordingly dismissed the application.
The individual previously sought compensation from the ICJ Conciliation Committee in response to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF) refusing to transfer her pension funds. Finding that it did not have the competence to issue recommendations vis-Ã -vis the Pension Fund, the Conciliation Committee recommended that the ICJ approach the Pension Fund in order to obtain a definitive decision by the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board which the individual could then challenge before the Appeals Tribunal. The individual filed an application with UNAT, which ordered her to provide clarification as to which claims contained in her original appeal she sought to pursue and to produce any relevant documents, including the decision of the Standing Committee. The individual provided submissions in response to the order.
Compensation may only be awarded for harm suffered that is supported by evidence. The mere allegations of a staff member that he or she suffered emotional stress or anxiety are not considered to be such evidence under the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal. The Appeals Tribunal may only award costs against a party when that party has manifestly abused the appeals process.
No relief ordered.