Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly determined that the issue before it was the failure of the Administration to address the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with regard to the Appellant¡¯s request for an investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the award by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of USD 40,000 constituted sufficient satisfaction for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly refused to entertain the request for compensation for economic loss because the Appellant¡¯s separation from service was not the subject of judicial review. On the issue of the Appellant¡¯s request for an apology, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no basis to impugn the approach adopted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Appellant sought a variety of reliefs following a decision in the Appellant¡¯s favour to compensate the Appellant for the Administration¡¯s failure to address the complaint with the required due diligence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT restricted itself to consideration of the adequacy of compensation. Noting that the Appellant was deprived of the opportunity to prove a breach of the Appellant¡¯s fundamental human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation and HIV status and that the Appellant¡¯s rights were further compromised by the passage of time which rendered any enquiry ineffective, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded USD 40,000 for emotional distress, which sum included the equivalent of one month¡¯s net base salary that the Secretary-General had agreed to pay, but not yet paid.
Legal Principle(s)
In order to invoke the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, a specific administrative decision must be identified and administrative review must be sought in relation to that decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is in the best position to determine the nature of the remedy that should be granted in any case.