±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Goodwin¡¯s cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by awarding excessive compensation to Mr Goodwin. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT relied on Larkin (judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-134) on the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s discretion to determine the amount of damages. Noting the long period before Mr Goodwin before returning to full service and that the amount of compensation awarded was based on the JAB¡¯s recommendation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that compensation in the amount of two years¡¯ net base salary was reasonable. In considering whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal, which alleged that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in finding that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Administration¡¯s decision not to inform Mr Hamayel that his post would not be held for him during his second year of Special Leave Without Pay (SLWOP) was arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby vitiating the decision to transfer Mr Hamayel, and by awarding moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was both logical and reasonable to expect the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Administration to inform Mr Hamayel that taking a second year of SLWOP would cause him to lose his post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, even though Mr Hamayel had...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Terragnolo¡¯s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the impugned judgment followed ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence, but ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that due...

±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in fact or in law such as to vitiate its judgment, except with regards to the award of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not overstep its role to judicially review the administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure on the staff member and terminating his appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration had failed to demonstrate that the staff member had committed the serious misconduct he had been charged with, because not only did the proceedings fail to provide him with an adequate...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General on material damages, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was the body best placed to assess a candidate¡¯s chance of selection for placement on the roster. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that there were several candidates selected from the roster in the months following the roster approval was sufficient to underpin ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s assessment that the staff member¡¯s chances were not in the realm of the speculative. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s cross...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal and allowed it in part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that the AJAB found a series of violations of her rights as a staff member, but had not awarded commensurate compensation, had merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the IACO breaches identified by the AJAB were fundamental in nature, (i. e. The treating of a temporary assignment as permanent, discrimination of the staff member, failure to make good faith efforts to find alternative positions, and refusing to provide access to personnel and confidential files) and the breach itself gave rise to an award of moral damages by...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the appeal only addressed the award of material damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member was entitled to one year¡¯s gross base salary apart from sick leave for the period of his certified illness. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of twelve months¡¯ gross base salary for material damages as a result of the non-renewal was not disproportionate, taking into account his service from 2003 to 2011. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had thoroughly examined the governing principles in awarding damages and followed the jurisprudence of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not properly review the impugned administrative decision to determine whether the Administration had given full and fair consideration to staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration had fully complied with Section 1 of ST/SGB/2009/10 and paragraph 5 of the Guidelines, as it must when considering whether a staff member is eligible for conversion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had made a significant error of law in concluding that the impugned decision was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in...

The Secretary-General appealed, regarding the judgments on liability and relief. Mr. Wasserstorm also appealed regarding the judgment of relief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and found that the recommendations are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on receivability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reversed the judgment on Liability and vacated the judgment on Relief. With respect to the award of costs, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to...