Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050/Corr.1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal that centred on whether the Appellant should be awarded enhanced compensation of three months¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make a reversible error in declining to award compensation for moral suffering. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case was distinguishable from Mebtouche (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/039), where the Applicant, Mr Mebtouche, had already retired and had no chance of being promoted, therefore enhanced compensation was justified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that enhanced compensation could not be awarded to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable for not being filed against a final judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not filed untimely and was, therefore, receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, whatever the gravity of the irregularity committed by the Administration and the number of points obtained by the Applicant in the 2007 promotion session, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error in providing that the High Commissioner could decide to pay compensation rather than execute the rescission order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in setting the amount of compensation at 8,000 Swiss francs, did not make a manifest error. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, concerning the conclusion that compensation should be paid for moral damages...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred on questions of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both appeals by Mr Attandi, against Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/038. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) was a directive to the Appellant and not a judgment against which an appeal could be filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an appeal against the Order was not receivable because it was not a final judgment rendered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Regarding judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/038, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the appeal was certainly receivable as the Appellant's case was struck out, there was no merit in his contentions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to complete his appeal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General appealed against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment to seek a clarification of the ratio of the judgment with regard to the way in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied the principle of preponderance of evidence and ignored the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions on the basis of ¡°minimal showing¡± that the Applicant had been fairly considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not examine the legal submissions in the appeal since the case had been decided in favour of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the grounds of appeal pleaded was valid under Article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal centred on the receivability of the appeal to the JAB. The Appellant had sought a waiver of the time limit to appeal before JAB on the basis that his legal counsel was away from Syria for medical treatment for a year. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the Appellant¡¯s 18-month delay in filing his appeal pending either his counsel¡¯s return or replacement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB properly considered that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to file an appeal to the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff members had accepted the lump-sum calculated by the ICTY travel unit while reiterating their disagreement with the calculation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that by accepting a lump-sum payment for home leave travel, the staff members forfeited any right to contest the calculation of the amount of the lump sum payment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration on the merits.