±¬ÁÏÍø

In reviewing the Appellant¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s position was based on generalized reasons, as opposed to specific facts, and found no real justification for the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this was inconsistent with the jurisprudence of the former Administrative Tribunal, which provides that an Administration must act in good faith and not make decisions based on erroneous, fallacious, or improper motivation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that when an administrative decision concerns termination, it shall set an amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the compensation awarded to Ms Harding for the loss of salary and other entitlements from the date of her dismissal to the date of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment with interest was excessive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it must take into account that she received compensation on or around 18 February 2008 and it could not consider the loss of earnings as actual harm after that date when the non-reinstatement was known to the claimant and the offered compensation caused by that circumstance had already been paid. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a total of 2. 5 years¡¯ net...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP decision to contact the Pakistani Government directly to enquire about its deputation policy was improperly motivated. With regard to the new communication upon which the Appellant wished to rely, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was new evidence, for which leave was required, in order to adduce it before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find any exceptional circumstances existed to require it to consider the new evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in taking into consideration the conditions governing the Appellant¡¯s deputation in order to determine his...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the Compensation Case, an appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Ethics Policy Case, and a cross-appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Compensation Case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose from his or her employment and that there must be sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an award for damages was justified in the circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the amount of fourteen months¡¯ net...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaints. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, by virtue of the ¡°dysfunctional¡± work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall¡¯s conduct into question. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had applied an unduly restrictive...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was asking for a review of his case in order to enhance the award and that he merely repeated arguments already considered and accepted by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, which was not the purpose of an appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not met the burden of demonstrating that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in assessing the damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision on this point. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-076) and Wu (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-042), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months¡¯ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted...

±¬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.

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...