±¬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 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.

The Secretary-General appealed and Mr Marsh filed a cross-appeal, challenging the legality of the interview process and the compensation award. With respect to the first issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the records showed a proper and professional proceeding during the interviews and the report of its outcome was based on evaluations objectively motivated, and Mr Marsh was accorded the objective consideration and equal treatment to which all candidates are entitled. With respect to the second issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that not every violation of due process will necessarily lead to an award of compensation...

±¬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.

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 ±¬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...

±¬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 the Appellant¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s contention, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not required to ascertain whether the closure of the Centre was a consequence of mismanagement or of any other factor since the primary purpose was not to get rid of the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction by not ascertaining whether the closure of the Centre was the result of serious mismanagement and irregularities. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the Appellant failed to submit sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that the desire to retaliate against him...

±¬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 considered an appeal, in which the Appellant claimed that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed procedural errors in allowing the Secretary-General to embark on a de novo fact-finding inquiry and that the disciplinary measure of separation was disproportionate. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was within the competence of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to hold oral hearings as well as to order the production of evidence for fair and expeditious disposal of the proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct, for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member, occurred and...