±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s approach, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant, was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT relied on its holding in Hastings (2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-109), where it held that the trial court is in a much better position than ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in assessing the probabilities of a candidate being selected for a position. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the Appellant should not be awarded any additional compensation beyond the amount already paid to her. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request to award costs against the Secretary-General, noting that there were...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Ms Simmons¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it determined that compensation of USD 500 was reasonable compensation for the procedural breaches, which occurred regarding her performance appraisal for 2007-2008, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT placed undue weight on Ms Simmons¡¯ omissions and/or actions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the compensation awarded for this breach was manifestly insufficient. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that she did not receive full and fair consideration regarding Post 1, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasised the importance of performance appraisals and noted that there appeared to be a pattern of delays in completing those of the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the present circumstances of the case, the award of USD 3,000 was manifestly insufficient and increased the compensation to three months¡¯ net base pay. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal to the extent that it pertained to compensation.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT consider the appeal receivable and find that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat¡¯s appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rescinded...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant¡¯s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant¡¯s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-078) and held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contentions against judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/004 were not receivable since only appeals against judgments on merits are receivable. Regarding the contentions against judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/080, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no need to produce further documents. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly applied Article 10. 5 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute in ordering compensation in lieu and that the Appellant had no right to request ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to order his reinstatement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the non-renewal was based on a tainted performance evaluation and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, therefore, ordered the rescission of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision had adverse effects on his terms and conditions of employment, in particular his health insurance and benefits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had brought no relevant arguments to challenge ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was no administrative decision within ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s jurisdiction being contested. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬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.

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.