±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal centred on the receivability of the appeal to the JAB. The Appellant had sought a waiver of the time limit to appeal before JAB on the basis that his legal counsel was away from Syria for medical treatment for a year. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the Appellant¡¯s 18-month delay in filing his appeal pending either his counsel¡¯s return or replacement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the JAB properly considered that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to file an appeal to the JAB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff members had accepted the lump-sum calculated by the ICTY travel unit while reiterating their disagreement with the calculation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for consideration on the merits.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT order as not receivable, finding that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a ¡°specialist¡± post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that neither ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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...

±¬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 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reversible error on part of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for consideration on merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment, and remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s contention about the quantum of compensation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the staff member suffered stress based on his submission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed no error in awarding compensation for...