Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Appleton and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held by majority that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it declined to award compensatory damages to Mr Appleton. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely appropriate for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to approach the issue of compensation under Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by engaging in a consideration of Mr Appleton¡¯s likely prospects of success. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Mr Appleton¡¯s appointment to the post was not a foregone conclusion and thus he had no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Goodwin and the Secretary-General limited to the issue of compensation. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT declined to award pecuniary damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held (with Judge Faherty dissenting) that there was no error of law or fact on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT such as would entitle Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to interfere with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Appellant had been properly compensated for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held t that the substantive and procedural breaches identified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of themselves merited an award of moral damages because of the harm caused to Mr Goodwin, namely his having...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered it both reasonable and practical to provide for two different dates from which the time limit commenced to run. When the management evaluation is received within the deadline of 45 days, an application must be filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 calendar days of an applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response. However, when the management evaluation is received after the deadline of 45 calendar days but before the expiration of 90 days for applying to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the receipt of the management evaluation will result in setting...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals, one by Ms S. Nourain and one by Ms A Nourain, against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/142. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Ms A. Nourain¡¯s appeal as she was not a party to the proceedings and had no standing to appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts were not disputed; the misconduct had been established and so had its seriousness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not say that the sanction of dismissal was unfair or disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal of Ms A Nourain as not receivable and the appeal of Ms S. Nourain on the merits.

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...

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 application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-185. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in its Case Management Order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for interpretation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the required grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT properly discharged its duty to examine whether the procedure laid down in the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules had been followed and whether the Appellant had been given fair and adequate consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly placed upon the Appellant the onus of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of being promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s observation that it was not enough for the Appellant to merely allege favouritism and yet...

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 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...