±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against the judgment on the merits (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/054) and two further appeals by both the Secretary-General and the Applicant of the judgment on compensation (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/131). Relying on its previous holding in Bertucci (2011/±¬ÁÏÍøAT/114), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the Administration violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights, as no actual prejudice was found. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the established facts, as admitted by the Applicant, clearly demonstrated that he engaged in the sexual harassment of local employees and used his position of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT set aside the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, in which the Appellant contended that exceptional circumstances existed that would merit a waiver of the time limit, allowing his application to be admitted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in such an instance, it is the applicant¡¯s responsibility to convince the tribunal of such circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant did not overcome this hurdle before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s contentions that he had exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and the Appellant¡¯s reliance on erroneous advice...

The Appellant appealed the amount of damages awarded by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and claimed additional compensation for the excessive delay of more than four years, from the date she requested an administrative review to the date of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had been adequately compensated and noted that, unless she could show that she was singled out to work more than her similarly placed colleagues, it would be difficult to conclude that the Chief demanding a higher work output from the Appellant constituted harassment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

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 Ms Comerford-Verzuu¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal, regarding whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in holding that the contested decision was dated 2 August 2005 and that the request for administrative review was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the OIOS reply of 2 August 2005 was the administrative decision of which Ms Comerford-Verzuu was seeking a review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the subsequent correspondence was unwarranted and did not extend the time limit for seeking administrative review of the first administrative order. Accordingly, the time limit for seeking administrative...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, in agreement with the Secretary-General, agreed that there were no grounds to award compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no administrative decision being contested in this case, as both parties accepted the decision to promote Ms Kamal and she had not identified any illegality that could lead to an award of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the delay in completing the selection process could not be considered a valid ground for compensation, since the circumstances of the case did not show any negligence or violation of specific...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the statement dated 26 November 2003 was neither a decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s appointment nor a disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the statement was merely a publicly stated opinion which had no legal consequences on the Appellant who, in addition to having already been informed on 29 October 2003 that his contract would not be renewed beyond 30 November 2003, had also declared that he would not be able or willing to continue working for ±¬ÁÏÍøODC after his contract expired. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

The Appellant contested the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that he was afforded full and fair consideration for the position of Chief and argued that he suffered unfair and discriminatory treatment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that if the Administration does not comply with a Tribunal¡¯s order to disclose the reasons for an administrative decision, as such, the Tribunal cannot automatically conclude that the decision was arbitrary, but it is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the refusal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the Administration¡¯s decision must be deemed unlawful, as the Secretary-General refused to comply...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no valid claim of unfair treatment and discrimination by the Appellant against the former Chief of ATS and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT therefore correctly limited its consideration to the interview process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was merely repeating arguments that were adequately considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and that there were no reasons to reverse ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.