±¬ÁÏÍø

There are incidents on which the Applicant had no direct knowledge. Consequently, he has no standing in filing a complaint of prohibited conduct in relation to them.

It was inappropriate for the Director, DA, ±¬ÁÏÍøOG, to play an instrumental role in the constitution of the investigation panel considering that he was the decision-maker in relation to one alleged incident, was a material witness in the investigation and was highly likely to be interviewed by the investigation panel. Several factors cumulatively gave rise to a reasonable perception of a conflict of interest on the part of a panel...

The administrative decision to close a staff member¡¯s complaint with no disciplinary action produces direct legal consequences affecting his/her terms and conditions of appointment. Moreover, when the claim concerns issues covered by ST/SGB/2008/5, the staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures. If he or she is dissatisfied with their outcome, he or she may request judicial review of the administrative decisions taken. Accordingly, the application is receivable in its entirety.
The Panel did not comply with its duty to take the necessary steps to obtain the testimony of one...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that, in light of the circumstances of the case, the Panel [appointed to undertake a fact-finding investigation into Duparc et al.¡¯s complaint], had failed to consider whether the limits of the managerial discretion were respected. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conducted an investigation de novo and thus exceeded its authority and usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s sole and exclusive authority in disciplinary matters. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that when ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rescinded the decision based on the investigatory Panel¡¯s report, it did not draw any...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in law by upholding the decision to summarily dismiss the staff member, which was taken in violation of the requirements of adversarial proceedings and due process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, while the use of statements gathered in the course of an investigation from witnesses who remain anonymous throughout the proceedings, including before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, cannot be excluded as a matter of principle from disciplinary matters, a disciplinary measure may not be founded solely on anonymous statements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ordered rescission of the contested decision to summarily dismiss the staff...

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

The Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Cabrera¡¯s cross-appeal centred on the issue of whether placing a staff member on SLWFP violates their due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in this case, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT created a new class of special leave, where the staff member was actually suspended with full pay. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not agree with the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the Office of Internal Oversight Services¡¯ investigation was not a preliminary investigation, as Mr Cabrera was put on leave using all the reasons under which he could be suspended. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to find that there was no breach of Mr Powell¡¯s due process rights at the preliminary investigation stage. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT manifestly erred in fact and in law by finding that the investigations conducted by the Board of Inquiry (BOI) and the Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) Team were final investigations and by then attaching due process rights that were pertinent only after the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal, set aside the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT findings in paragraphs 86 and 106 of the...

As a preliminary issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not follow the proper procedure when it allowed the Respondent to participate in the proceedings without a formal request for waiver of time limit for filing its answer and taking part in the trial. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that another significant irregularity took place during the proceedings before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, in light of which ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was compelled to annul the judgment and remand the case for a de novo consideration by a different ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judge, namely that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error in procedure when it denied the Appellant¡¯s request for a copy of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant, though entitled to receive a summary of the findings of the investigation report, was not entitled to receive a copy of the full investigation report without showing exceptional circumstances, which he did not do and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, upheld the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on this point. On compensation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant presented no evidence to prove that the violation of the three-month deadline undermined the investigation and the outcome of the complaint, or that he suffered actual prejudice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s offer of USD 1,000 was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had failed to present any evidence showing that they had suffered mental distress during the investigation, and such evidence was necessary for an award of moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had erred in not awarding them compensation for the lengthy administrative delay during the investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.