Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal Ademagic et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on that issue; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal by Mr. Longone. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members was vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on that issue; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ASG/OHRM, and not the ICTY Registrar, had discretionary authority in matters of permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ASG/OHRM had failed to exercise her discretion in a lawful manner in adopting a blanket policy of denial of permanent appointments to ICTY staff members rather than affording them the individual consideration to which they were entitled. Finding that the staff members were discriminated against and the impugned decision was legally void, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rescinded the impugned decisions and remanded the matter to the ASG/OHRM for consideration of retroactive...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the consideration of transferable skills as a criterion for future permanent appointment for staff members serving in a downsizing entity is a relevant factor and a legitimate consideration because the finite mandate of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) meant that such staff members had no realistic career prospects in that entity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a rational basis for the denial of permanent appointments for the language staff (professional and general service) given the winding down of ICTY and the diminishing need for Bosnian, Croatian...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the legality and rationality of the Administration¡¯s conclusion that it was not in its interests to retain the Appellant because he did not possess the relevant language skills. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was necessary for the Administration to take into consideration the interests, needs, and operational realities of the Organisation when determining the suitability of staff members for a permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was undoubtedly a rational basis for the denial of a permanent appointment for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that irrespective of whether the Appellant was...

Admissibility: The parameters of what is admissible before this court is provided for in Article 18 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. In relevant part, the Article states that the Tribunal shall determine the admissibility of any evidence; and that it may exclude evidence which it considers irrelevant, frivolous or lacking in probative value. Workplan/EPAS: It is the responsibility of the first reporting officer to set out the work plan with the Applicant; to conduct the mid-point review and the final appraisal; and to provide supervision on the overall work of the Applicant during the course...

In the present case, the Applicant, who was advised by OSLA that his case lacked legal merit and who nevertheless could be represented by a counsel of his choice before the Tribunal, cannot claim that his due process rights were violated. The Tribunal reiterates that a fixed-term appointment carries no expectancy of renewal. However, the Judge must examine whether the Administration¡¯s actions may have created a legitimate expectation of renewal and whether the decision not to renew the appointment was motivated by extraneous factors. In the present case, the decision not to renew the Applicant...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge of his non-renewal is not receivable as no administrative review of this decision was sought. The Respondent failed to reasonably exercise the discretion to withhold or modify the Investigation Report (and Executive Summary). The parties will be directed to make submissions on appropriate relief.

The applicant was not separated because of the expiry of his fixed term contract, but because of the applicant¡¯s shortcomings and of the fact that his performances did not meet expectations; the applicant was rated for two consecutive years ¡°partially meets expectations¡±. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has been afforded his due process rights and that his rights were not violated. In the present case, the decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment is not unlawful.