2014-Ģ��ƵAT-440

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that, while the representatives of the parties were present at the oral proceedings, they are entitled to the record of the testimonies made at those proceedings from the relevant Ģ��ƵDT Registry. Ģ��ƵAT held that this record is critical for the preparation of the appeal case. Ģ��ƵAT held that the transcripts of the testimonies of seven out of 17 witnesses were missing. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant was entitled to the record of the testimonies critical to the preparation of the appeal case, applying its jurisprudence in Finnis (Order No. 49 (2011)). Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment, and remanded the case to Ģ��ƵDT for retrial by a different judge.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to summarily dismiss him on grounds of misconduct. Ģ��ƵDT found that there were serious due process violations in the investigation. Ģ��ƵDT, however, determined that such flaws had been rectified by the proceedings before Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵDT found that the evidence which transpired during the trial did not materially depart from what the investigators found. Ģ��ƵAT found that the burden of proof utilised by the Secretary-General did not meet the standard established by Ģ��ƵAT in Molari (2011-Ģ��ƵAT-164) (clear and convincing evidence). Ģ��ƵDT, however, concluded that the sanction of summary dismissal was fully justified.

Legal Principle(s)

In a case with oral evidence, Ģ��ƵAT cannot review Ģ��ƵDT��s findings unless it has a transcript of that testimony. In a case that turns on disputed facts, Ģ��ƵAT would have no choice, in the absence of a written transcript, but to remand to the trial court for a new and recorded hearing.

Outcome

Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Stoykov

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement