±¬ÁÏÍø

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 considered an appeal by the staff member arguing that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not awarding compensation in lieu of remand to ABCC as an alternative remedy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment not awarding in-lieu compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that since the Secretary-General concurred with the remand in question, the claim became moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a claim of gross negligence against the Administration is a separate action that could not be included in this claim. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated that the delay had any impact on her physical or mental well-being, rejecting her...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Affairs, Lebanon¡¯s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no sufficient evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to justify its findings of ¡°moral injury¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it awarded compensation on a claim of ¡°moral injury¡± without the support of evidence, apart from the testimony of the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment regarding the award of compensation for moral harm.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no room for ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to substitute its decision...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant¡¯s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, requesting compensation for moral damages, compensation for costs for legal representation, and request for interest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referred to Article 9(1)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, which states that compensation may only be awarded for harm suffered that is supported by evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ICJ Registrar that the ICJ was not responsible for the delays, but rather demonstrated good faith in bringing about an arrangement favourable to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also referred to Article 9(2) of...

The Secretary-General appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law when it concluded that the procedure was flawed on the basis that it was not sufficient for the Assistant Secretary-General/Controller to countersign and approve the ±¬ÁÏÍøCB recommendation and that a separate and reasoned decision was necessary for the regularity of the administrative procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that there was a procedural delay and, therefore, granting compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment insofar as it awarded compensation for the procedural...

Both parties appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct regarding the non-receivability ratione materiae with respect to the first three decisions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, however, disagreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had unlawfully delayed check-out, including his final payments and the submission of the required forms for his pension, since the period of three and a half months which was taken by the Administration to investigate and proceed with Mr Nchimbi¡¯s ¡°check-out¡± was not unreasonable in the given circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the Secretary-General's appeal and dismissed Mr Nchimbi¡¯s...