����AV

In light of the Respondent’s acceptance of the findings of the UN Ethics Office that the Applicant’s supervisor had engaged in retaliatory acts against the Applicant, the Tribunal did not examine or make any findings on the issue of liability for retaliation. The Tribunal’s review was limited to the issue of compensation. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s claim that the cancellation of her e-PAS and the failure to promptly issue another one negatively affected her ability to find other employment within the service of the Organization. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not shown that, if not for the irregularity, she would have had a “significant chance” or “realistic prospect” of securing other employment with the United Nations. Regarding the Applicant’s applications for Director’s positions, the Tribunal considered that the evaluation did not concern e-PASes but rather focused on merits, specific experience and reference checks. The Tribunal noted that her e-PAS had not been an issue for the thirteen positions that the Applicant had applied for. With respect to the Applicant’s claim for compensation for moral damages, the Tribunal rejected as inaccurate the Applicant’s contention that the OIOS investigative material and the Ethics Office’s finding of retaliation were proof of injury. The Tribunal held that these documents demonstrated illegality of actions by the Administration, their improper intent, thus the cause of a potential injury they however did not prove the result. On this basis, injury could only be presumed as a probable consequence to an average person placed in the same situation, which, however, would not be sufficient under art. 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal found that expert evidence was not necessary because the evidence of the Applicant and independent witnesses was not atypical under the circumstances, considering the magnitude of the breach with its harming nature, and the extent of the claim. On the basis of the testimony adduced, the Tribunal was satisfied that, as a result of the impugned decision, the Applicant experienced insult to her dignitas, humiliation before her colleagues, including subordinates, impossibility to fully utilize her qualifications, and insecurity of her job, which in turn led to disappointment, demoralization and anxiety, and a negative impact on her physical health. The Tribunal awarded the Applicant six months’ net base salary as compensation for the moral damages she had sustained.