±¬ÁÏÍø

On appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT limited its consideration to the issue of the amount of compensation awarded in lieu of rescission and the amount of compensation awarded for harm. On the issue of in lieu compensation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to advance any error of law or of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in lieu compensation is not intended to compensate for the possible harm suffered by the injured person, as that is the specific aim of compensation for harm. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had the discretion to fix this amount as a generic sum and was not bound by...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, regarding the question of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Civic limited to the extent to which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed her claim of compensation for pecuniary damage (loss of opportunity). On loss of opportunity, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it found that the irregularity of cancelling the Appellant¡¯s performance appraisal and the failure to promptly issue another one did not suffice to demonstrate a significant chance or realistic prospect of her retaining another position within the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the irregularity was inconsequential for the purposes of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law, and followed binding ±¬ÁÏÍøAT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant¡¯s testimony. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...

±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in its determinations or award of moral damages, which was a reasonable amount in the circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in deciding not to order any material damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant¡¯s rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s unsubstantiated allegations of bias and conflict of interest against the judge who signed the impugned judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that: (1) the Appellant did not provide any evidence of his suitability for conversion to a continuing appointment; (2) his appeal was based solely on the impossibility of the retroactive extension of his fixed-term appointments; and (3) he had been made aware that his fixed-term appointment would be extended pending the appropriate assessment of his performance under the rebuttal process. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, regarding the question of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member¡¯s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the staff member that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...