±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals from both Mr Schoone and the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, for the reasons set forth in judgment Nos. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-357 (Malmstrom et al. ), 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-358 (Longone) and 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-359 (Ademagic et al. ), the delegation of authority granted to the ICTY Registrar could not be construed so as to grant him the authority to convert staff members¡¯ fixed-term appointments into permanent appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that in those three cases it had held that the decision-making authority to grant permanent appointments was properly vested in the Assistant Secretary-General for...

Noting the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited ±¬ÁÏÍøAT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err on questions of fact by ignoring or failing to examine what the Appellant considered to be evidence, which constituted mere allegations and unsubstantiated argumentation on his part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that a litigant¡¯s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not the task of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT (or ±¬ÁÏÍøAT)...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant¡¯s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was not manifestly unreasonable in concluding that the date upon which the Appellant was on notice that he had received a response from the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) or that it was his responsibility to read the MEU response as soon as possible. On the question of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and/or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in declining to consider the case on the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in the absence of a prior written request for a suspension or waiver of the time limit for filing his application, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not competent to consider the issue...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there had been a policy change in 1997 which meant that staff members who requested pension as a result of an accident suffered in the service of the Organisation post-1997 were granted it with the proviso that it would only be paid until they retired. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, as the Appellant¡¯s accident occurred long after the policy change in 1997, the changed policy was applicable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that as the Appellant had reached retirement age at the time of the incapacitating injury, his appeal had to be dismissed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the facts upon which the sanction was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, albeit for different reasons than given by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the evidence from two witnesses had little probative value was correct because although written witness statements taken under oath can be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence the facts to support the dismissal of a staff member when a statement is not made under oath or affirmation, there must be some other indicia of...

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President¡¯s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the application was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT has, in principle, the discretion to accept ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s late reply in circumstances where ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA has not filed a motion seeking leave to do so and without proprio motu ordering ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA to file a reply. Noting the Administration¡¯s reply was due before the transitional period into the new system of justice began, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it granted a waiver of time after an excessive period of time had passed which was based on inaccurate facts and an invalid reason. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...