Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the Compensation Case, an appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Ethics Policy Case, and a cross-appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Compensation Case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose from his or her employment and that there must be sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an award for damages was justified in the circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the amount of fourteen months¡¯ net base salary, as recommended by the Ethics Office and ordered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, was excessive and reduced this to six months. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the award of USD 5,000 for the Administration¡¯s substantial delay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there had been no retaliation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr Shkurtaj¡¯s appeal, granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in part, and dismissed Mr Shkurtaj¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, except insofar as the fourteen months¡¯ compensation was reduced to six months¡¯ compensation.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
In the context of an alleged retaliation case, the Applicant contested the decision not to pay him fourteen months¡¯ net base salary as recommended by the Director of the Ethics Office (Compensation Case) and the refusal by the Administration to apply the Secretary-General¡¯s Bulletin on retaliation (Ethics Policy Case). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant had standing in both cases. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found for the Applicant in the Compensation Case, awarding an additional USD 5,000 for the Administration¡¯s failure to consider in a timely manner, act on, or communicate the Ethics Office¡¯s findings and recommendations to the Applicant. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the Ethics Policy Case.
Legal Principle(s)
A former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose or flowed from his or her employment; there must be sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned action. Damages awarded for violation of due process rights are not exemplary or punitive but must be awarded with care and be of a reasonable amount.