51�Թ�

The Tribunal is of the view that in light of the oral evidence presented to the factfinding panel by the FRO and SRO, instead of them following the recommendations of the second rebuttal panel to initiate and provide real support to the Applicant at every stage of the process, they continued their negative behavior towards the Applicant and they did not temporarily rotate/assign him to another position in a different Unit for the following six months (up to one year starting from 19 March 2014), and to allow for the continuation of his third probationary year. The Tribunal concludes that the Applicant’s due process and substantive rights and his real chances to improve his performance under the guidance of other supervisors, which he was entitled to, were denied to him. The Tribunal considers that in the absence of such a statement relating to the nature of the duties and length of service, a former staff member may be prejudiced against because s/he cannot prove having been employed by the Organization when applying for a position with a new employer, including the 51�Թ�. The Tribunal concludes that the Applicant’s right to receive such a statement referring to the nature of his duties and length of service within the 51�Թ� was breached. This Tribunal agrees with the majority decision taken in Kallon and considers that, in the present case, the Applicant suffered moral harm as a result of the unlawful decision which breached his due process right to have his complaint fully and fairly considered by the Administration as proved by the totality of evidence according to the standard of proof established by the Appeals Tribunal in Kallon, “[t]he evidence to prove moral injury of the first kind may take different forms. The harm to dignitas or to reputation and career potential may thus be established on the totality of the evidence”. The Tribunal considers that the present judgment, together with an amount of one year’s net-base salary at the P-2 level, step 8, represents a reasonable and sufficient compensation for the moral harm caused. The establishment of the fact-finding panel was, pursuant to the Applicant’s complaint, delayed until after his effective separation occurred, which prevented the Administration from taking measures to keep him under contract until the completion of the investigation and until the investigation results were communicated to him. Furthermore, the results of the investigation report were communicated to him to a wrong email address, and reached him (to a correct email address) one year and three months after his separation.