Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of CHF 5,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the power to award costs for manifest abuse of proceedings before JAB, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General¡¯s delay in responding to the JAB report constituted a manifest abuse of proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the delay in question was not inordinate and, in any event, a delay in and of itself, did not constitute a manifest abuse of proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could lawfully award costs against the Secretary-General, it was necessary to determine on the evidence that the delay constituted a wrong or...

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 agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the 60-day time limit for the purpose of requesting management evaluation of a non-selection decision started on 29 October 2010, when the staff member was informed of her non-selection, and not on 17 December 2010, when she learned of the identity of the selected candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no second administrative decision that reset the time limit; rather, the staff member learning the identity of the selected candidate was a consequence of the administrative decision...

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in its determination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal basis for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to bind the Administration to a 90-day statutory time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not necessary to remand the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration of the merits as the issue was one of law, namely, whether the Administration was entitled to revoke the indefinite appointment granted to Ms Cranfield. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as of 30 June 2009, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held a contract of indefinite appointment which meant that she was not eligible for conversion to such an...

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 that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President¡¯s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/131. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr McIlwraith raised claims substantially similar to, if not identical to, those raised by the other International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members who appealed judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/131, as well as the staff members who appealed judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/129 and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/130. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since it had rescinded the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment against which the staff members appealed, the majority of their claims were rendered moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it's reasoning in Malmstr?m et al....

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the discrete issue of the ¡°Observations¡± of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General, despite being the beneficiary of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in his favour, was entitled to appeal the observations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT overstepped the mark to a significant degree in effectively recording, as part of its judgment, ¡°Observations¡± in the manner in which it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination on the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to make ¡°Observations¡± as it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and ordered that...