�山����

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in assessing the evidence presented. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its finding that i) it would seem that the Appellant’s situation with his former FRO had actually been resolved since they no longer worked together; ii) the Appellant’s eventual temporary reassignment would appear to have been a very reasonable further solution to bring him out of an office environment in which he obviously continued to feel uncomfortable, and iii) it would fall within the Administration’s discretion whether to enact any of the three measures proposed by the Appellant. UNAT found, however, that UNDT erred in its ultimate finding that the Administration’s response to the Appellant’s complaint was adequate. UNAT found that it was not reasonable to consider that the mere inaction on the part of the Administration, particularly following the Appellant’s suggestions, given at the Administration’s request, was “appropriate action in due course”. UNAT partially granted the appeal and held that the UNDT judgment should be partially modified in that the Administration’s response to Appellant’s complaint was, in addition to untimely, inadequate. The rejection of the request for compensation was affirmed.