±¬ÁÏÍø

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected an application by the Staff Union of the ICTY for leave to file a friend-of-the court brief under Article 17 of its Rules of Procedure on the scope of review of the Secretary-General¡¯s decision in disciplinary proceedings and the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings, on the basis that the facts and legal issues were not so complex that the brief would assist it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in exercising judicial review, may interfere with the exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion in disciplinary proceedings against a staff member on the ground...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed that the circumstances of the allegation of unsatisfactory conduct in the present case created the obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in awarding damages to Mr Abboud while finding that he had not suffered any economic loss and that no actual damage existed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rescinded the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment to the extent that it awarded damages to Mr Abboud.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal should be regarded as timely because the initial submission in Arabic was received within the prescribed time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the fact-finding committee acted in an objective and responsible manner in conducting its investigation and assessing the charges. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting a finding of misconduct, which was not successfully rebutted by the Appellant, which alone was a sufficient basis for the impugned decision. Given the established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that (1) the Commissioner-General has broad discretionary authority in disciplinary matters; (2) the facts on which the Appellant¡¯s termination was based were established; (3) the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct; and (4) there was no substantive or procedural irregularity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant¡¯s termination was legal and not disproportionate to the offenses. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA decision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, when reviewing a sanction imposed by the Administration, it needed to examine whether the facts on which the sanction was based were established; whether the established facts legally amounted to misconduct; and whether the disciplinary measure applied was disproportionate to the offense. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to discipline the staff member for misconduct. However, in light of the mitigating factors, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the offense and substituted the disciplinary measure of demotion with that of a written...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

On appeal, the Appellant asserted that the Commissioner-General erred in not following the JAB¡¯s recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the JAB did not assess the totality of the evidence when making its recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT specifically held that the JAB¡¯s recommendation that no clear policy or instruction prevented the Appellant from giving the individual the authorization to use the DSA Facility did not take into account that there was a clear policy to inform his supervisors, which the Appellant failed to do. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if the appeal was not time-barred, it would be dismissed on merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the established facts showed that the Appellant engaged in misconduct warranting a disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the imposed sanction was proportionate to the offence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any violation of her due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision to demote the Appellant.

In considering the Appellant¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s non-promotion during the 2004-2005 Annual Promotion Session as the issue was not raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding on the merits that the Appellant had not been subjected to harassment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was a proven record of considerable efforts deployed in order to resolve the Appellant¡¯s situation, involving the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR senior management at the highest level and that the High Commissioner personally met the Appellant and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Yapa. On the issue of the two-year ban on promotion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of law in considering that the general legal principle that a sanction may not be imposed on any person unless expressly provided for by a rule in force on the date of the facts held against that person must be respected in disciplinary matters. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err on a question of law in finding that the sanction of a two-year ban on promotion lacked a legal basis. On the written censure and demotion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did...