Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred on a question of fact by finding that the three-year ban on promotion ¡°influenced¡± the Applicant¡¯s decision to resign. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, three months after the Applicant¡¯s resignation, the Administration revoked the third part of the sanction, the three-year ban on promotion, acting in line with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence concerning the illegality of that measure because it was not provided for in the former Staff Rules applicable at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the modification of the imposed measures did not entail a significant change in the staff member¡¯s situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the circumstances would lead to the conclusion that the decision to resign was voluntarily adopted by the staff member faced with the difficult situation at work he himself had caused. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any financial loss the staff member might have suffered appeared to be generated by the lawful demotion (first) or the voluntary resignation (later) and that there were no grounds for compensating what was not caused by the Administration¡¯s illegal ban on promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that all the consequences and alleged injuries suffered by the staff member in the present case were caused by the staff member¡¯s overall situation and status at the time of his sanction and resignation, and not by the illegal ban on promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.