±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.

On the merits, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly identified the Agency¡¯s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-076) and Wu (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-042), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in ¡°double-counting¡± by using the same element of Mr Andersson¡¯s high chance of promotion to justify both its award of CHF 10,000 in lieu of rescission, as well as its award of CHF 4,000 for moral damages. The claim for moral damages was related to the reparation of an injury, that could not be regarded as covered by the payment of CHF 10,000 awarded as an alternative to rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that Mr Andersson only fleetingly referred to...

On appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court¡¯s evaluation of the Applicant...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member¡¯s bank account. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had no merit, it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

The only issue in contention in this appeal is whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law or fact when it found that the harm to the Appellant was sufficiently evidenced to justify an award of compensation for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT based the award of compensation for harm both on the evidence produced by the individual and what it described as ¡°pre-existing distress that the individual was already suffering from¡± which ¡°was exacerbated by the unlawful decision to refuse his request¡± to investigate the allegations of discrimination. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was to determine whether Mr. Kebede...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in assessing the evidence presented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its finding that i) it would seem that the Appellant¡¯s situation with his former FRO had actually been resolved since they no longer worked together; ii) the Appellant¡¯s eventual temporary reassignment would appear to have been a very reasonable further solution to bring him out of an office environment in which he obviously continued to feel uncomfortable, and iii) it would fall within the Administration¡¯s discretion whether to enact any of the three measures proposed by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...