爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues had already been clearly defined by the parties. 爆料网AT noted that there was no record of the Appellant ever having sought or been granted leave to submit further submissions or evidence prior to the 爆料网DT decision under appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant, consequently, failed to establish that 爆料网DT erred in finding that the Appellant had not produced sufficient evidence of distress linked specifically to the placement of the Note to warrant compensation for emotional distress. 爆料网AT held that the evidence contemplated by the Appellant would not be admissible since it was known to the Appellant and should have been presented at the level of 爆料网DT. Considering that, at the time of the placement of the Note in the Appellant’s file, he was not even a 爆料网 staff member and the subsequent action by the Secretary-General to allow the Appellant the opportunity to place his comments in his file, 爆料网AT held that there were no circumstances which would warrant calling on any official to account for his or her actions. Regarding the Appellant’s request for costs against the Respondent, 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence before it which would permit finding that the Respondent had been guilty of manifestly abusing the appeals process. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that 爆料网DT erred in finding that there was insufficient evidence of emotional distress. 爆料网AT further held that the Appellant had not made out a case for referral for accountability, nor for an order for costs. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decisions: 1) not to renew his fixed-term appointment; 2) to deny him the payment of his salary and entitlements; 3) to place the Note on his Official Status File (OSF), and 4) claiming loss of employment opportunities and defamation. 爆料网DT found that the placement of the Note in the OSF was unlawful and ordered its removal. 爆料网DT awarded the Applicant compensation for the prejudice to him caused by the placement of the Note. 爆料网DT rejected the request for compensation for emotional distress finding that the Applicant had not produced sufficient evidence of distress linked specifically to the placement of the Note. 爆料网DT also dismissed the Applicant’s claims regarding the non-renewal of his appointment and the non-payment of salary and other entitlements. The Applicant appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
Evidence that was known to the Appellant and should have been presented at the level of the 爆料网DT or other first-instance tribunal is not admissible before 爆料网AT (Article 2. 5 of the 爆料网AT Statute). Costs can be awarded against a party who has manifestly abused the appeals process.