Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/004 (judgment on receivability) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/128 (judgment on the merits). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to upset the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the parties sought the mediation of their dispute and were within the deadlines for filing an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, affirming Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding, that the Applicant¡¯s application was receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Noting that the Applicant commenced employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF less than three months after her separation and with no reduction in level or step from her previous role, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted the Secretary-General¡¯s position that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIL staff members were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed restructuring from the beginning of the process, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIL National Staff Association representative participated in the discussion on the Guidelines for the comparative review process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not speculate on the chances that each of the posts might not have been abolished if there had been consultations with the National Staff Association. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the change in the composition of the...

The Appellant did not raise any challenges as to the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment, but rather his appeal related to the procedure adopted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in hearing his complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction in the exercise of its power, such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Noting that two Orders clarified the aim of the hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no prejudice caused to the Appellant by the failure to provide him with a description of the relevance of the witnesses¡¯ testimony. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals of both judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/026 (judgment on the merits) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/051 (judgment on revision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the judgment on the merits was filed out of time and was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment on revision failed to identify a ground of appeal, expressed disagreement, and repeated arguments already considered and rejected by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact upon which the Appellant had based his revision application did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, despite its Registry¡¯s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant¡¯s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s regulatory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in procedure in the following ways: firstly, by denying his request to call a specific witness; secondly, by making allegedly conclusory remarks at the oral hearing; and, thirdly, by refusing to admit further evidence on discrimination and retaliation committed against him in 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any error of procedure so as to affect the outcome of the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify, remain within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and do...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to determine or assume that the injury was service-related; to assume that there was a likelihood of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) would have reached a different conclusion had it followed the correct procedure; that the ABCC made its recommendations based on uncertain facts and inference which were derived, improbably, from the absence of evidence; that after the second accident, the staff member was permanently disabled and unable to work...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the motion for execution of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-359. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had been provided with information from the Secretary-General that all six members of Dalgaard et al. had either resigned, retired or transferred from ICTY prior to the issuance of the impugned decision. In light of this information, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of them could rightfully claim that they were entitled to moral damages as a result of their rights being violated by the impugned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that the course of action taken by the Secretary-General, in deciding that Dalgaard et al. were...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of the relevant jurisprudence was correct and that it did not commit any error in law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took care to examine the evidence in order to ascertain if, in fact, an express promise of renewal had been made to the Appellant. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was unable to find any such evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submissions regarding his work experience, duties, and responsibilities, functions of his duty station, and his interest in a renewal had no merit as grounds for an expectancy of renewal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...