Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in reopening a matter that had already been the subject of a final judgment of UNAT. UNAT considered that UNDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by making its own determination of Mr Sarwar’s harassment complaint, emphasising that the role of the Tribunal is not to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it rescinded the contested decision to close the matter underlying the Appellant’s formal complaint, and when it ruled that there was no need for a new investigation as the Appellant was found to be the victim of harassment and abuse of authority. UNAT held that UNDT erred by finding that there had been unlawful procedural delays with respect to reviewing Mr Sarwar’s harassment complaint and that the Investigation Panel had made a commitment to hold a second interview with Mr Sarwar, and that such delay and the decision not to hold a second interview did not amount to a breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. On the issue of compensation, UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction when awarded the Appellant moral damages, given that there was no causal link between the moral harm alleged and the medical evidence presented. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.