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 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 Finding that the staff members were discriminated against and the impugned decision was legally void, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rescinded the impugned decisions and remanded the matter to the ASG/OHRM for consideration of retroactive...

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 noted that appeals from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the Appellant¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Asariotis. Considering first the cross-appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the ground of appeal related to claimed errors in procedure on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to deal specifically with certain issues, namely the benefits Ms. Asariotis lost and priority that would have been afforded to her as a female candidate, did not manifestly affect the outcome of the case, in view of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the decision to cancel the vacancy announcement was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s competence with regards to the nature of the redress granted to Ms Farr. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering that Ms Farr¡¯s name be placed on the roster because the legal consequence of the annulment of the selection procedure was restricted to placing the staff member in the same position she would have been in if the illegality had not occurred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, to afford Ms Farr proper redress, she should be allowed to take a second oral exam in French, with adequate assurances concerning the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding and held that, pursuant to the Inter-Organisation Agreement (which states that service in the releasing Organisation will be counted as service in the receiving Organisation), the staff member¡¯s service with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA should have been counted as service with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ and that he thus met the service criterion for eligibility. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and remanded the case to the Administration to decide whether the staff member met the remaining criteria for conversion to a permanent appointment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by awarding compensation for distress without a previous claim for damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr Debebe¡¯s claim before the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had been limited to material or pecuniary damages related solely to remuneration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for moral damage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment to the extent that it awarded compensation for moral damages.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Secretary-General¡¯s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...

On the issue of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision not to take up the Appellant¡¯s motion for disclosure of documents, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate how this affected his rights or would have had a relevant impact on the evidence already collected, the basic facts of which were not contested, and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there were no procedural grounds to vacate the judgment. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any error of fact or law that warranted reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that not every violation of due process led to an award of compensation...