UNDT/2024/003, GUEZEL
The lack of justifiable explanation on the part of the Respondent for the delay from December 2018 to June 2021 could only be attributed to lack of due care and diligence, transparency, accountability and good faith. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay was compensable.
The Applicant proved beyond a balance of probabilities that the mental and emotional harm suffered by the dependents was directly attributable to the Administration’s negligent handling of the matter.
The claim of moral harm was sufficiently proved to the requisite standard.
The Applicant challenged an implied administrative decision taken by the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (“ABCC”) not to compensate the deceased staff member’s dependents for the inordinate delay of the ABCC in processing their compensation claim pursuant to Appendix D to the Staff Regulations and Rules (Rules Governing Compensation in the Event of Death, Injury or Illness Attributable to the Performance of Official Duties on Behalf of the United Nations).
Despite the apparently narrow wording of the third category of lawful claimant under art. 3.1(c) of the UNDT Statute, its intention is clearly to at least allow claims made by, for example, the executor or other administrator of the estate, of a deceased staff member.
Inordinate delay is a reviewable administrative decision.
Compensation may only be awarded for harm supported by evidence.
The party alleging moral injury carries the burden to adduce sufficient evidence proving, beyond a balance of probabilities, the existence of factors causing harm to the victim's personality rights or dignity, comprised of psychological, emotional, spiritual, reputational and analogous intangible or non patrimonial incidents of personality.
Moral harm can be proved by evidence produced by way of a medical, psychological report or otherwise. Credible external evidence independent of the Applicant’s testimony whether medical or otherwise constitutes adequate corroborative evidence.