Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues had already been clearly defined by the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no record of the Appellant ever having sought or been granted leave to submit further submissions or evidence prior to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision under appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant, consequently, failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Appellant had not produced sufficient evidence of distress linked specifically to the placement of the Note to warrant compensation for emotional distress. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence contemplated by the Appellant would not be admissible since it was known to the Appellant and should have been presented at the level of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Considering that, at the time of the placement of the Note in the Appellant¡¯s file, he was not even a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member and the subsequent action by the Secretary-General to allow the Appellant the opportunity to place his comments in his file, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no circumstances which would warrant calling on any official to account for his or her actions. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s request for costs against the Respondent, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence before it which would permit finding that the Respondent had been guilty of manifestly abusing the appeals process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that there was insufficient evidence of emotional distress. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Appellant had not made out a case for referral for accountability, nor for an order for costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decisions: 1) not to renew his fixed-term appointment; 2) to deny him the payment of his salary and entitlements; 3) to place the Note on his Official Status File (OSF), and 4) claiming loss of employment opportunities and defamation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the placement of the Note in the OSF was unlawful and ordered its removal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded the Applicant compensation for the prejudice to him caused by the placement of the Note. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the request for compensation for emotional distress finding that the Applicant had not produced sufficient evidence of distress linked specifically to the placement of the Note. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also dismissed the Applicant¡¯s claims regarding the non-renewal of his appointment and the non-payment of salary and other entitlements. The Applicant appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
Evidence that was known to the Appellant and should have been presented at the level of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or other first-instance tribunal is not admissible before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT (Article 2. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute). Costs can be awarded against a party who has manifestly abused the appeals process.