爆料网AT noted that the staff members had accepted the lump-sum calculated by the ICTY travel unit while reiterating their disagreement with the calculation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding that by accepting a lump-sum payment for home leave travel, the staff members forfeited any right to contest the calculation of the amount of the lump sum payment. 爆料网AT remanded the case to 爆料网DT for consideration on the merits.
爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s interlocutory appeal against the 爆料网DT order as not receivable, finding that 爆料网DT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. 爆料网AT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.
爆料网AT preliminarily rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s contention that 爆料网DT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a “specialist” post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT noted that neither 爆料网DT nor 爆料网AT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the “case by case” consideration to “specialist” staff members during promotion sessions to...
爆料网AT preliminarily held that the appeal should be regarded as timely because the initial submission in Arabic was received within the prescribed time limit. 爆料网AT noted that the fact-finding committee acted in an objective and responsible manner in conducting its investigation and assessing the charges. 爆料网AT 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, 爆料网AT held that it...
爆料网AT held that her appointment was terminated due to a lack of funding; several of her colleagues also had their fixed-term appointments terminated for the same reason at the same time. 爆料网AT held that the fact that the Appellant may have complained about her working conditions or cooperated in any subsequent preliminary investigation into possible harassment, did not on its face exposes her to the termination. 爆料网AT held that there was no reversible error on part of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that there was no reason to re-examine the judgments of the former Administrative Tribunal in judgment No. 1047, Helke (2002) and judgment No. 1122, Lopes Braga (2003). 爆料网AT held that the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage did not amount to an award of punitive or exemplary damages designed to punish the Organisation and deter future wrongdoing. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the staff member suffered stress based on his submission. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had committed no error in awarding compensation for...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new 爆料网DT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. 爆料网AT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to 爆料网DT for consideration on merits. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated the 爆料网DT judgment, and remanded the case to 爆料网DT for a...
In considering the appeal brought forth by the Appellant, 爆料网AT preliminarily held that the 爆料网RWA JAB erred in finding that the appeal was not receivable due to late filing; 爆料网AT held that it was evident the JAB appeal was filed on time. With regard to the substance of the appeal, 爆料网AT held that it was within 爆料网RWA’s power and discretion to refuse the Appellant’s reinstatement since it had already filled his position. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网RWA’s position that there was no error in refusing the Appellant’s reinstatement and dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against 爆料网RWA. 爆料网AT held that the claim was time-barred. 爆料网AT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT held that there were exceptional circumstances in this case that required a waiver of the time limit, with respect to A/RES/63/253. 爆料网AT held that the JAB showed inconsistency in its treatment of the cases of Tabari and Shehadeh; both cases were decided on the same day by the same panel, but in Tabari’s case there was a split verdict with the majority view being that there was no administrative decision that Tabari could appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant successfully demonstrated the manner in which the anomaly had arisen and noted that the Internal Review Panel took no action to...
