±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions were valid in most aspects. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of 21 months¡¯ compensation was excessive as it was not reasonable to assume that Ms Belkhabbaz¡¯s fixed-term appointment would have been extended for longer than one year, finding that an award of 12 months¡¯ remuneration would be adequate compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by awarding pecuniary damages relating to Applicant¡¯s placement on sick leave with half pay. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by awarding...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Affairs, Lebanon¡¯s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and that...

Both parties appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by finding a valid contract of employment between Ms Al Hallaj and ESCWA since no letter of appointment was issued, only an offer of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a quasi-contract was formed, considering that Ms Al Hallaj had unconditionally accepted and had fully fulfilled all the conditions specified in the offer of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the ESCWA Administration committed two major errors, in breach of its quasi-contractual obligations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ESCWA Administration failed in its due diligence to specify clearly and...

Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the award that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered ought to have been made. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating...

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 the Appellant¡¯s identity was probably known by the assessment panel at the time her test was marked. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s test was graded by the assessment panel after it had sent the transmittal memorandum to the Central Review Panel (CRP), creating the additional burden for the Appellant of having to persuade the assessment panel to change its original recommendation in the transmittal memorandum. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, as the candidates recommended in the transmittal memorandum did not have this additional burden, it could not be said that all candidates received equal...

±¬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 the reason upon which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...

±¬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...