Judgment No. 1548
Decision
1.The Director-General's decision of 6 July 1995 is quashed.
2. The FAO shall pay the complainant damages in a sum equivalent to two years' salary and allowances at the rates prevailing in February 1994.
3. It shall pay him 1,000 United States dollars in costs.
4. His other claims are dismissed.
Consideration 21
Extract:
The grounds for non-renewal being deterioration from 1990 in the complainant's performance and conduct, "the burden is on the Organization to show that its decision rested upon proper appraisal of the complainant's performance. [...] All the reports up to September 1990 having been satisfactory, the Organization's failure to have proper appraisal reports made since then is a flaw in the decision."
Keywords
decision; burden of proof; organisation's duties; breach; work appraisal; performance report; different appraisals; period; rating; contract; non-renewal of contract; unsatisfactory service; conduct; flaw; procedural flaw
Consideration 24
Extract:
The FAO's reply and the conclusions of the Appeals Committee show that one point that influenced the decision was the charge against the complainant of unsatisfactory behaviour, especially poor relations with supervisors in Uganda and the Sudan. But he denied some of those allegations; others he was not even told of; and none was pursued. By acting on such allegations the FAO denied him due process.
Keywords
due process
| 
