����AV

The Initial Reprimand. The provisions of ST/AI/292 and the doctrine of audi alteram partem were not observed in that the Applicant was not afforded an opportunity to see and to comment on the reprimand before it was issued for which reason he had no opportunity to comment on it in advance. The Reinstated Reprimand. The Tribunal identified the following difficulties with the Reinstated Reprimand: (1) as with the Initial Reprimand, the Applicant was not permitted to see and to comment on the Reinstated Reprimand in accordance with ST/AI/292; (2) the rules and regulations of the Organization, specifically ST/AT/371, did not allow for the issuance of a reprimand after a misconduct charge has been dismissed; under the specific provisions of ST/AI/371, para. 9, if the facts of a case did not appear to indicate that misconduct had occurred, the Secretary-General was required to close the case immediately, notify the staff member that the charges have been “dropped”, and take “no further action”; and (3) when the Initial Reprimand was issued, the Applicant had a legally-protected expectation that his case was closed, since it would be anomalous, indeed, for legal decisions to be in jeopardy simply because of a change at the highest level of the administration (the Reinstated Reprimand was issued by a new Secretary-General). Outcome: Applicant awarded four months’ net base salary in effect in January 2006.