±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Bertucci. Recalling that compensation in the absence of actual injury is without legal basis, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law. However, acceding in part to the cross-appeal by Mr Bertucci, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that when the disciplinary procedure does not bear out allegations against a staff member that may have been considered during a preliminary investigation, entitlements that may have been lawfully withheld pursuant to administrative instruction ST/AI/2004/3 must be paid in full, including interest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not find that the Applicant was distressed by ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR¡¯s illegal conduct or that he had suffered any adverse consequences or harm from ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR¡¯s procedural error in following the opinion of DSS. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had exceeded its competence and made an error in law in awarding compensation to the staff member since he had not suffered pecuniary loss or distress and was not harmed by the illegal conduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal and reversed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment regarding the award of damages to the staff member.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant simply stated that he suffered harm following the decision not to reclassify his post but did not provide any evidence of harm to his career or morale. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that compensation may only be awarded if it has been established that the staff member actually suffered damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no nexus between the emotional distress of preparing for the exam and the impugned decision as the preparation took place prior to the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the contradictory information received by Ms Mirkovic and the lack of responses from the Chief of the Examinations and Tests Section added to her stress and injury was not supported by the facts, noting that written confirmation of what the Chief had told her was not required in order for her to request management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬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...

The Appellant appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment failure to consider several points and to address compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the requisite grounds in his appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not allow new claims to be raised on appeal when the circumstances giving rise to such claims were known to a party at the time and should have been presented to ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision not to award compensation on the basis that there was no evidence in support of the Appellant¡¯s claim of psychological suffering. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General in which he appealed the order of the award of damages and averred that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on questions of law and fact and exceeded its competence in awarding damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasonable expectation of the duration of Mr Andreyev¡¯s contract was one year and reduced the award of compensation in lieu of rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence of harm to support the award for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, reduced the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission to nine months¡¯ net base salary, less...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not address any error of fact or law in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the irregularities in the procedure did not amount to a breach of the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was irrelevant whether the Appellant filed his application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in the interests of justice or seeking an award of moral damages since there was no evidence of damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s request for leave to submit new evidence since the Secretary-General had the opportunity to present the evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s requests in response and to conduct an oral hearing finding that the appealed issues had been adequately clarified. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erroneously substituted itself for the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings were supported by evidence and would, therefore, not interfere with the determination as to the existence of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s rescission of the decision to maintain the classification, reaffirming the right of staff members to request reclassification when the duties and responsibilities of their posts changed substantially as a result of restructuring within their office. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reversed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s order to remand the case to the Administration, stating that a second remand was unviable and unfair having regard to the fact that the protracted classification review process was mainly due to the reluctance and failure of management to follow their own rules, regulations and administrative...