text: adqpted its I=jJt& On 21 Novembm 1988. Itsconclusionsandzmxmmdati~ read as follcws: Wonclusionsandreccaanendations meRmelconcl~thattheZ4dmini~ti~failedto ~theaFpellant'srepttation. 37. Intheabsence0fevidenceto~ . 'atemnetaryloss ~y=sumngt,thePanelreoarmnendsthat: (a) theMmMstrationissuetothea.ppllantapersoml lettxofapologyforitsfailuretopmtecthis EJ==nal reputation; (b) if the appellant so mquests, theAdministraticmissuea formal clarificationof the situatimsoas ticormct . !DXBpthmtheC-W acktxwledgehismeritoriousserviceandgoodshndingt a, (c) theMministmtionpaytkappllanttheequivalentof one day's net base pay (at the time of his separation fmnservice)asancminalpaynmtforthemralinjury sufferedbytheappellantasaresultofthe JUtbblistratian’S impmperhandlingoftkhelnatter. 38. !theFkUElll&E?snO the appeal." fuHherreamem%tionsinsuppcrrtof On 7 Wcember 1988, the LWde.r-Seme4zySeneral furlk3mini-on andMamgmmtinfmnedtheApplicantthattheSmetaryGeneralhad . ~hiscaseinthelight~ftheBoard~s~,andhad~~ ofitsconclusions. Hestatedinthisregard: II . . . It is mgmttable that the appmpriate officials didnotmoreclearlydealwithinplicationsraisedby intheOqanimtionwasnotproclahsd.Inthismmech --f--Y- wishesto -yau-tyanc depa&uEfmmthe ~0fPublicInfcrmationinno mumerreflectedupnyourintegrityasaninternational civilservantoryour mcqnizedhighpofessicmalcmpteme and Iqmtation in the field. -7 - --- hEiS, inthis-, decidedto WCE?ptthCiBoard’S lmadmus~timtograntyouone &y8snetbasesalaxyasanminalpayInentforthenroral injuryycusufferedandtotakenc furthaactionmthe matter." Inaletterdatedl3DemWer 1988,theApplicxntaskedthe -wforAdministratimandv for a letter of apologyfrcsnhim,inompliancewiththe reaomrmendatianoftheJAB,and askedthathecirculatethel~aswidelyaspossible~journalists, staffarxi~tivesofMemberStates. On 1 Fkkuary 1989, the Applicant filed with the Tribmal the applicationreferredtoearlier. bhereastheZqplicant8sprincipalconWnti~are: 1. ?heApplicantsuffe.redmralinjurybecaUseofthe~~s failuretoFnmtecthisreputation. 2. Ihe~failedtoinlplesnentingccdfaiththeunanimcrus lxcmmdationoftheJAB,apprrwedbyttae~~. 3. TheReqm&mtfailedtoissuetotheApplicantaperscml letterofapolcgyas -by-JAB. -the w’s pA.ncipal mntentim are: 1. IheRqmdenthas~affirmative ietpny enfomeableobligatim topmtecttheApplicantfrumpress~~mlrraperly inposedadministrative~. 2. TheApplicant appmntlydidmttakethelogical, availableand effectivestepstc~hisawnreprtationinface0ftheirrraEendoes mwcx>rrespondents. 3. TheFteqmeahasno- legallyaxpizableobligatims towardstheApplicant. TheMpmdenthasalmadysufficientlyapolcgized totheAppl.icant. l%eApplicant8s~fordisseminationam umwsmable:andtheApplicant~srequestfornmetarycaapensatian is unjustified, exessiveatxIbeycndtheTrihmal~smqxWme= -8 - l%eTrihmal,havingdeliberatedfmn25April199Oto16May199O, rnd w the following judgem& : I. Al~theApplicantlistssevenpleas,fundamefital ly-wf- partoftwoprincipalamplaints. lBefimtisthattheRqxx&ntdidnut extendtokimtheprotecti~towhichhewaserrtitledasastaffmen33er,and thesecxxrAisthatthememmm&m of 7 May 1987, from the Assistant tBcr&aqW for I-&mm Remumes v(-)t~- secretary-Generaldefamshhandesbblishesthathisseparationwas hmughtatxmtbyquestionablemeans;hetherefo~claims~ ccinpmatim. II. l%eJoint~sBoard(JAB)examimdindetailthe~laintabout ~l~of~~andcancludedthat"~Admini~ti~failedto ~~appellant~smputation~andsggesbd SaneEllEdidl-. --accepted- reammdati~oftheJAB,txlttheApplicant assertsthathefailedtotakepmperlytherermedidlmasures whichformsd anhtegralpartofthezxmmembtions. III. As forthe secondp3kcipalpleamgardhgthenmmar&mof 7May1987,theJABdidnot examine it as it "did not have -to consider[the]issuesraiseii...sincethepmsentappsal...islimitedto ~i~ofpnrotecrtianofpersonaland~f~ionalrepttatianoplly". In view of this, the question of receivability of the present plea, umcemhg themmxandmof 7May1987miqht~callyhe invoked,butW Applicantsidestepsthei~byslaggestingthatthe~prrincipalpleas areimepambleandintertwinedandalsoasacorollarythatalltheuther pleasarisecutofthesetbmcloselyammctedmattem. l%eRes~has notraisedthequestianofreceivabilityinhis~. Iv. As a follow-upactian fortheJ?Ws amclusimthatthe&spoMeM ~failedto~the~~cant's~ti~,theJAB~,and ~~aacepted,thata"~letterofapology"sbniLdbeserrt totheApplicant. Huwever,theletterwhichinfactwaswTittentothe -9 - ~~cant~nat,inhisvi~,refl~what~JABhadirrtendedandsohe asserk3thattheacceptarrceoftheJAB's remmemhti~wasneitherclear norstraightfoman% 'Ihe rekvant part of the letter of 7 Dmember 1988, fmnmemdePSecEtwy~forAdministratianand~tothe Applimntreads: "It is req&table that the appropriate officials did notmreclearlydealwithinplicatimsraisedby -f--=-Y- wishesto -ycru~~your -f--m of Public Infmtion in no mmnerreflecteduponpurintegrityasaninternational civil servant or your mcognizedhighpfessionalcanpetence 
analysis: The text appears to be related to a dispute or complaint filed by an individual, the Applicant, against the Joint Administrative Board (JAB) and the Ministry of Public Information, regarding an alleged failure to protect his reputation and reputation damage caused by the JAB's handling of his case. The text mentions various documents, letters, and meetings, indicating a formal process. The content seems to be focused on administrative and bureaucratic matters, rather than a specific sector or industry.