Judgment No. 4449
1. WHO shall pay the complainant an additional 5,000 euros by way of moral damages.
2. WHO shall pay the complainant 5,000 euros for legal costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant seeks additional compensation for the delay in dealing with her harassment complaint.
complaint allowed; harassment
The Tribunal notes that the complainant advances several new pleas that were not raised in the internal proceedings. According to the Tribunal’s case law, “a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas [...] before the Tribunal even if these pleas were not placed before the internal appeal body” (see, for example, Judgment 4009, consideration 10).
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4009
receivability of the complaint; new plea
[B]y quoting Judgment 3314, consideration 25, concerning WHO, the complainant alleges that the delay to process the harassment complaint amounted itself to continued harassment. Judgment 3314, consideration 25, reads as follows: “In summary, the Organization breached Staff Rule 1230.3.3, the complainant’s contract and its duty to provide her with a congenial working environment. In effect, the Organization denied the complainant the due process to which she was entitled in the investigation of her harassment complaint. The result was a delay which exposed the complainant to continued harassment.” In that case, it was the organization’s failure in its duty to provide a congenial harassment-free workplace that had caused the complainant a further harassment. In the present case, the complainant separated from WHO shortly after filing her harassment complaint. Her situation is therefore not comparable to that of the complainant in the case leading to Judgment 3314. Also, there is no evidence to prove that actions of the Administration in the internal procedures constituted harassment.
harassment; precedent; delay in internal procedure