2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-270, Marshall
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall¡¯s conduct into question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT had applied an unduly restrictive...