Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the incidents in question occurred before ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated, it was not applicable in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unnecessary for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to apply ST/SGB/2008/5, which was clearly not in force at the time of the incidents. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the error committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, finding that Mr Nogueira in any event merited a compensatory award for harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Nogueira was entitled to an effective remedy for the violation of his legal right to a workplace...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the absence of any breach of the staff member¡¯s substantive or procedural rights during the selection exercise precluded the award of moral damages to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member could not show a breach of a fundamental nature or that he suffered harm, stress or anxiety directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his substantive or procedural rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to respond to staff members¡¯ repeated requests for information was not a breach of his substantive contractual...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the open animosity and ill-feeling between the PCO and the staff member, the Administration should not have included the former in the interview panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the test for apparent bias applied by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct, regardless of whether a fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the interview panel was biased. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was best placed to calculate on the evidence the appropriate level of compensation and found no reason to disturb the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Maghari¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-039. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to the party applying for revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT relied on the Appellant¡¯s statement to ascertain that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the payment of interest awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on the payment of Mr Ahmed¡¯s accrued vacation days was undue, noting that any delay in the separation formalities was entirely attributable to him and, as such, he could not be compensated for the delay in payment. On the compensation in lieu of notice, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and held that the matter was properly before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and could not be construed as res judicata. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Administration made a commitment to pay Mr Ahmed compensation in lieu of notice and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals from both Mr Schoone and the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, for the reasons set forth in judgment Nos. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-357 (Malmstrom et al. ), 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-358 (Longone) and 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-359 (Ademagic et al. ), the delegation of authority granted to the ICTY Registrar could not be construed so as to grant him the authority to convert staff members¡¯ fixed-term appointments into permanent appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that in those three cases it had held that the decision-making authority to grant permanent appointments was properly vested in the Assistant Secretary-General for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision that the application was not receivable as consistent with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 111. 2 and Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute. On alleged errors in procedure, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had no opportunity to challenge the untimeliness of the Commissioner-General¡¯s reply before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, but that, since the Appellant had not demonstrated how the untimely reply affected Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision on receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit on this ground. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning on the issue of EVR. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent an appealable...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the application was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT has, in principle, the discretion to accept Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s late reply in circumstances where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA has not filed a motion seeking leave to do so and without proprio motu ordering Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to file a reply. Noting the Administration¡¯s reply was due before the transitional period into the new system of justice began, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it granted a waiver of time after an excessive period of time had passed which was based on inaccurate facts and an invalid reason. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts upon which the sanction was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, albeit for different reasons than given by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the evidence from two witnesses had little probative value was correct because although written witness statements taken under oath can be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence the facts to support the dismissal of a staff member when a statement is not made under oath or affirmation, there must be some other indicia of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged error in the factual findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not constitute circumstances that warranted revision, because none of them would result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and affirming Mr Massah¡¯s separation from service for serious misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was inadmissible since its goal was to litigate the case de novo as a result of counsel not agreeing with the final judgment, an option which was not provided to the parties by the applicable law...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Obdeijn¡¯s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-201. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute from a rule based on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that: the Sidells were negligent in not reporting their marriage before their separation from service; Mr Sidell notified Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in October 2003 of his marriage to Mrs Sidell and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF requested him to provide his original marriage certificate, which he did; and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF did not follow up with Mr Sidell about the matter. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, by remaining silent, created a reasonable expectation on the part of the Sidells that Mr Sidell¡¯s pension record was corrected and that his marriage to Mr Sidell was recognised by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the circumstances, it was...

The staff member appealed seven Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, by continuously filing appeals lacking merit, the staff member had manifestly abused the proceedings, and awarded costs against the staff member for the first time since its inception.

Noting the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with respect to case management, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his ¡°evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these matters had been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rules...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation by Mr Shkurtaj on the issue of interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Warren (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-059) and Mmata (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-092) for the holding that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement became due. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the interest payable was at the US Prime Rate and that an extra five per cent should be added to the US Prime Rate if the judgment was not executed within 60 days of its issuance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the date from which interest on the compensation was to be paid at the US Prime Rate was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT expressly held in Mmata (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-092) that Article 10. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute limited the total of all compensation to the equivalent of two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant, unless higher compensation was warranted and reasons were given to explain what makes the case exceptional. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case was exceptional, including a series of orders for suspension of action, findings of fact pointing to evidence of abuse of authority, retaliatory threats, and a hostile and offensive environment...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the appeal as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that applications to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were only receivable if the applicant had previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation and that management evaluation was a mandatory first step. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as the Secretary-General had clearly established the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s lack of jurisdiction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, made an exception to the general rule that only appeals against final decisions are receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as the issue of jurisdiction did not go directly to the merits of the case, there was a need to receive the appeal at that time rather than to wait for the issue to be raised in an appeal against the final judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was one...