Frivolous filings
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Sanction Decision - 21.03.2011 |
KAREMERA et al. (ICTR-98-44-AR73.19) |
|
|
13. The Prosecution argues that the Appeal should be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In the Karemera Decision of 5 May 2009, the Appeals Chamber stated that “there is no appeal from a decision to impose sanctions under Rule 73(F) of the Rules.” The Appeals Chamber considers, however, that this statement of the law is unduly broad and should apply only in circumstances where a party seeks to appeal as of right.[2] This precedent should not be applicable to situations, as in this case, where the decision imposing sanctions was certified by the Trial Chamber. Therefore, to the extent that the Karemera Decision of 5 May 2009 restricted the consideration of certified decisions on sanctions under Rule 73(F) of the Rules,[3] the Appeals Chamber considers that there are cogent reasons to depart from this jurisprudence. 14. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber considers that a decision to impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 73(F) of the Rules is subject to interlocutory appeal in accordance with Rule 73(B) of the Rules. The Appeal is therefore properly before the Appeals Chamber. [1] Karemera Decision of 5 May 2009 [Édouard Karemera et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR75.15, Decision on Joseph Nzirorera’s Appeal Against a Decision of Trial Chamber III Denying the Disclosure of a Copy of the Presiding Judge’s Written Assessment of a Member of the Prosecution Team, 5 May 2009], para. 21. [2] Indeed, the decisions relied on by the Appeals Chamber for this proposition concerned appeals of right in situations where the decision imposing sanctions was not certified by the Trial Chamber. See Karemera Decision of 11 June 2004 [Édouard Karemera and Joseph Nzirorera v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR73.4, Decision on Interlocutory Appeals Regarding Participation of Ad Litem Judges, 11 June 2004], p. 4 (“a decision to impose monetary sanctions on counsel for frivolous motions or abuse of process pursuant to Rule 73(F) of the Rules is not subject to appeal under the Statute of the […] Tribunal or the Rules and […] in any event, the certification granted by the Trial Chamber in this case does not cover an appeal from the decision to impose such sanctions”) (emphasis added); Karemera Decision of 9 June 2004 [Joseph Nzirorera v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR73(F), Decision on Counsel’s Appeal from Rule 73(F) Decisions, 9 June 2004], p. 3 (“there is no basis for granting a right of appeal in the present case”) (emphasis added). [3] Notably, the Appeals Chamber in the Karemera Decision of 5 May 2009 ultimately reviewed and reversed the Trial Chamber’s decision to impose sanctions, albeit relying on an alternative jurisdictional basis. See Karemera Decision of 5 May 2009, paras. 21-23, citing Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Judgement, 28 November 2007, paras. 73, 74. The English translation of the original French version was filed on 16 May 2008. |
ICTR Rule
Rule 73(F) Rule 73(b) |
|
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on Additional Grounds of Appeal - 17.08.2006 |
NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) (ICTR-99-52-A ) |
|
|
19. […] Therefore, it is apparent that the Motion of 6 March 2006 is devoid of any arguments in relation to the requirements prescribed by Rule 108 of the Rules and the jurisprudence of the Appeals Chamber. In this respect, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Motion of 6 March 2006 is frivolous. 51. […] The Appeals Chamber reiterates that unjustified amendments would result in appellants being free to change their appeal strategy after they have had the advantage of reviewing the arguments in a response brief, interfering with the expeditious administration of justice and prejudicing the other parties to the case, […] which is unacceptable. In this sense, the Appeals Chamber finds the Motion of 5 July 2006 frivolous. 56. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals Chamber [...], FINDS both Motions to be frivolous […] and imposes sanctions against the Appellant’s Counsel, pursuant to Rule 73(F), in the form of non-payment of fees associated with both Motions; and GRANTS the Motion of 7 July 2006. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on Additional Evidence - 08.09.2009 |
MILOŠEVIĆ Dragomir (IT-98-29/1-A) |
|
|
17. […] The Appeals Chamber finds that Milošević’s Counsel’s failure to at least attempt to satisfy any of the requirements of Rule 115 of the Rules, especially after his previous motions filed under the same provision were rejected for similar reasons,[1] amounts to professional negligence. The Appeals Chamber thus finds the Motion frivolous in the sense of Rule 73(D) of the Rules[2] and issues a warning to Milošević’s counsel under Rule 46(A) of the Rules. […] 21. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals Chamber DISMISSES the Motion in its entirety, FINDS the Motion to be frivolous and IMPOSES A SANCTION against Milošević’s Counsel, pursuant to Rule 73(D) of the Rules, in the form of non-payment of fees associated with the Motion. [1] Decision on Second Motion [Decision on Dragomir Milošević’s Further Motion to Present Additional Evidence, 9 April 2009], paras 18-20. [2] Cf. Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Appellant Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s Motions for Leave to Submit Additional Grounds of Appeal, to Amend the Notice of Appeal and to Correct his Appellant’s Brief, 17 August 2006, para. 19. |
ICTR Rule
Rule 46; Rule 73(F) ICTY Rule Rule 46; Rule 73(D) |
|
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision Regarding Leave to Amend Indictment - 19.12.2003 |
KAREMERA et al. (ICTR-98-44-AR73 ) |
|
|
18. […][T]he Appeals Chamber agrees that judicial economy may be a basis for rejecting a motion that is frivolous, wasteful, or that will cause duplication of proceedings. |
||