±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s approach, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant, was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT relied on its holding in Hastings (2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-109), where it held that the trial court is in a much better position than ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in assessing the probabilities of a candidate being selected for a position. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the Appellant should not be awarded any additional compensation beyond the amount already paid to her. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request to award costs against the Secretary-General, noting that there were...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the compensation award of six months¡¯ net base salary for the irregularities in the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the present case substantially differed from Kasyanov (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-076), which the Secretary-General relied upon; had Mr Kasyanov been selected, it would have been a mere lateral move for him without any change in salary and status. Contrastingly, Mr Sprauten¡¯s selection would have been a move from a temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law...

The Appellant appealed the amount of damages awarded by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and claimed additional compensation for the excessive delay of more than four years, from the date she requested an administrative review to the date of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had been adequately compensated and noted that, unless she could show that she was singled out to work more than her similarly placed colleagues, it would be difficult to conclude that the Chief demanding a higher work output from the Appellant constituted harassment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against the judgment on the merits (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/054) and two further appeals by both the Secretary-General and the Applicant of the judgment on compensation (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/131). Relying on its previous holding in Bertucci (2011/±¬ÁÏÍøAT/114), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the Administration violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights, as no actual prejudice was found. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the established facts, as admitted by the Applicant, clearly demonstrated that he engaged in the sexual harassment of local employees and used his position of...

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, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that not every violation of due process will necessarily lead to an award of compensation...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Kamynyi¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Mr Kamunyi¡¯s appeal in its entirety and held that it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to reassign a staff member to a different post at the same level and that such a reassignment is lawful if it is reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case and if it causes no economic prejudice to the staff member. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rightfully rejected Mr Kamunyi¡¯s request for legal costs, noting that no legal costs were owed to a party when the opposing party had not abused the process. With...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal limited to the claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered inadequate compensation for the losses he sustained as a result of various acts and omissions on the part of the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT took due regard for the arguments the Appellant brought in his appeal and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, having regarded the parameters of what it could compensate the Appellant for, made adequate provisions for the Appellant¡¯s economic and social losses in its overall award to him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the matter of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal had to be allowed in part because ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in setting the compensation in lieu of reinstatement at two years¡¯ net base salary without considering that Mr Gakumba¡¯s previous fixed-term appointments were one year each. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the expectancy of renewal could not be fixed beyond such a period and therefore reduced the compensation to one year¡¯s net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment on compensation for non-pecuniary damages and held that no error of law was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the payment of interest awarded by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on the payment of Mr Ahmed¡¯s accrued vacation days was undue, noting that any delay in the separation formalities was entirely attributable to him and, as such, he could not be compensated for the delay in payment. On the compensation in lieu of notice, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and held that the matter was properly before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and could not be construed as res judicata. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Administration made a commitment to pay Mr Ahmed compensation in lieu of notice and...

±¬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...