Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

In reviewing the Appellant¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s position was based on generalized reasons, as opposed to specific facts, and found no real justification for the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was inconsistent with the jurisprudence of the former Administrative Tribunal, which provides that an Administration must act in good faith and not make decisions based on erroneous, fallacious, or improper motivation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that when an administrative decision concerns termination, it shall set an amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded to Ms Harding for the loss of salary and other entitlements from the date of her dismissal to the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment with interest was excessive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it must take into account that she received compensation on or around 18 February 2008 and it could not consider the loss of earnings as actual harm after that date when the non-reinstatement was known to the claimant and the offered compensation caused by that circumstance had already been paid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a total of 2. 5 years¡¯ net...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP decision to contact the Pakistani Government directly to enquire about its deputation policy was improperly motivated. With regard to the new communication upon which the Appellant wished to rely, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was new evidence, for which leave was required, in order to adduce it before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any exceptional circumstances existed to require it to consider the new evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in taking into consideration the conditions governing the Appellant¡¯s deputation in order to determine his...

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by virtue of the ¡°dysfunctional¡± work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied an unduly restrictive...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was asking for a review of his case in order to enhance the award and that he merely repeated arguments already considered and accepted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, which was not the purpose of an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not met the burden of demonstrating that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in assessing the damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision on this point. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076) and Wu (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-042), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months¡¯ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasised the importance of performance appraisals and noted that there appeared to be a pattern of delays in completing those of the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the present circumstances of the case, the award of USD 3,000 was manifestly insufficient and increased the compensation to three months¡¯ net base pay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal to the extent that it pertained to compensation.

The Secretary-General appealed and Mr Marsh filed a cross-appeal, challenging the legality of the interview process and the compensation award. With respect to the first issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the records showed a proper and professional proceeding during the interviews and the report of its outcome was based on evaluations objectively motivated, and Mr Marsh was accorded the objective consideration and equal treatment to which all candidates are entitled. With respect to the second issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that not every violation of due process will necessarily lead to an award of compensation...