±¬ÁÏÍø

On the Appellant¡¯s claim for his name not to appear in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, due to the fact that his name had been in the public domain for a long time as a result of the publication of many court documents related to his cases before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, it would be pointless to order redaction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no...

This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has: (a) exceeded its...

The applicant, then a staff member, applied and was short-listed for the Galaxy-advertised post of ASG/DESA. The notice stated that the candidacies of all ±¬ÁÏÍø staff members were to be ¡°considered first¡±, that is to say, in priority to external candidates, and via a procedure akin to that of ST/AI/2006/3. The person appointed was not a ±¬ÁÏÍø staff member and the applicant challenged the decision to appoint them. At around the time of the applicant¡¯s application for the post, he was the subject of various widely publicized investigations. The respondent initially claimed that the decision not to...

In accordance with article 18, paragraph 2, of its rules of procedure, the Tribunal may order the production of evidence for either party and the parties have to provide such evidence, even though they consider it to be confidential. According to article 18, paragraph 4, of its rules of procedure, it falls upon the Tribunal to assess the confidentiality of the evidence and, if it finds the evidence to be confidential, it is the Tribunal¡¯s responsibility to ensure that measures are taken to preserve such confidentiality. In the instant case, the Tribunal did not use the confidential documents...

Nature of misconduct charges: Although technically not criminal charges, a misconduct charge may carry overtones of criminal proceedings, where rights attendant to a fair trial attach. Equality of arms: equality of arms may be seen to be an indivisible element of a fair trial, requiring that a fair balance exist between parties involved in litigation. The principle warrants the assurance that each party to a dispute be able to prepare and present his or her case fully and adequately before the court.Outcome: The Tribunal found that the conditions of access proposed by the Respondent would...

The Tribunal concludes that it was unreasonable and wrong to have withdrawn the offer of the FS-5 position. The matter is made worse as the offer was withdrawn after a long period of protracted exchange of correspondence between the Applicant and the Respondent. Informal dispute resolution: It is obvious that meaningful consultations towards the resolution of a dispute, when deliberated on in good faith, would serve the interest of management and the staff member. It would engender a collegial work environment and remove the antagonism and friction that usually results from workplace disputes...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to ICTR¡¯s decision is not receivable because the decision had no legal consequences which caused her material harm or otherwise adversely affected her terms or conditions of appointment. Request for anonymity: The Tribunal concluded that in balancing the right of the Applicant to have her personal data and sensitive material protected against the principle of transparency, the pleadings and associated documents did not reveal any material or information concerning the Applicant that requires protection.

The Tribunal (a) granted the application in part, (b) rescinded the contested decision in part and replaced the excessive and unlawful disciplinary measure of dismissal with the lesser sanction of separation from service with termination indemnity; (c) ordered the judgment to be included in the Applicant¡¯s official status file and all references relating to the disciplinary sanction of dismissal to be removed from this file and to be replaced with the new sanction, namely separation from service with termination indemnity; and (d) in the event that the Respondent would decide not to rescind...