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.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order as not receivable, finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a ¡°specialist¡± post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the ¡°case by case¡± consideration to ¡°specialist¡± staff members during promotion sessions to...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal should be regarded as timely because the initial submission in Arabic was received within the prescribed time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the fact-finding committee acted in an objective and responsible manner in conducting its investigation and assessing the charges. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting a finding of misconduct, which was not successfully rebutted by the Appellant, which alone was a sufficient basis for the impugned decision. Given the established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her appointment was terminated due to a lack of funding; several of her colleagues also had their fixed-term appointments terminated for the same reason at the same time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Appellant may have complained about her working conditions or cooperated in any subsequent preliminary investigation into possible harassment, did not on its face exposes her to the termination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reversible error on part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to re-examine the judgments of the former Administrative Tribunal in judgment No. 1047, Helke (2002) and judgment No. 1122, Lopes Braga (2003). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage did not amount to an award of punitive or exemplary damages designed to punish the Organisation and deter future wrongdoing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the staff member suffered stress based on his submission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed no error in awarding compensation for...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration on merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a...
In considering the appeal brought forth by the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA JAB erred in finding that the appeal was not receivable due to late filing; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was evident the JAB appeal was filed on time. With regard to the substance of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s power and discretion to refuse the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement since it had already filled his position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s position that there was no error in refusing the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement and dismissed the appeal.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claim was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were exceptional circumstances in this case that required a waiver of the time limit, with respect to A/RES/63/253. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB showed inconsistency in its treatment of the cases of Tabari and Shehadeh; both cases were decided on the same day by the same panel, but in Tabari¡¯s case there was a split verdict with the majority view being that there was no administrative decision that Tabari could appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant successfully demonstrated the manner in which the anomaly had arisen and noted that the Internal Review Panel took no action to...
