Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Requests for management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process.Outcome: Application rejected on receivability

The Tribunal held that whether an Applicant should be given reasons for the non-renewal of his or her fixed-term contract, even though fixed-term contracts carry no expectation of renewal, should be analyzed on a case by case basis. The Tribunal cited Obdeijn Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/032 which stated that ¡°even though a staff member does not have a right to an automatic renewal of a fixed-term contract, a decision not to renew such a contract may not be taken for improper motives, and the Tribunal is required to consider whether the motives were proper or whether countervailing circumstances existed in the...

Administrative decision: The essential element of an appeal is that there is a contested and appealable ¡°administrative decision¡±. ¡°Conduct¡± is not an administrative decision subject to appeal pursuant to article 8.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Preparatory decision: Preparatory decisions do not affect the scope or extent of an applicant¡¯s rights and are therefore not subject to appeal. Management evaluation: A request for management evaluation is a necessary step in the appeal process. While the findings of a management evaluation do not form an independent administrative decision subject to...

The Applicant received notification in writing on 30 September 2002 that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed after its expiry on 31 December 2002. The Applicant should therefore have requested a management evaluation by 30 November 2002. The Applicant did not do so. The Applicant, however, requested a management evaluation on 23 October 2009, over seven-and-a-half years after receiving the administrative decision that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed beyond its expiry date. The Tribunal has held that it does not have the power to suspend or waive the deadlines for...

Waiver of management evaluation deadline: The Tribunal held that the Respondent effectively waived the deadline for management evaluation and gave the Applicant the discretionary authority to decide when to litigate her matter by engaging her on the merits of her claims, even though her request for management evaluation was approximately 6 weeks late, and by suspending her request for management evaluation ¡°until further notice¡± with an undertaking that she could request for resumption of the formal process ¡°at any stage in the future¡±, should the issue not be resolved to her satisfaction.

With respect to the Cairo post, the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit his request for management evaluation on time. However, the Applicant submitted his request for management evaluation of the Fukuoka post decision on time. The Fukuoka decision related to administrative decisions within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. The administrative decision not to place the Applicant on the roster was made pursuant to rules in force at the time of his engagement by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat and was one that directly affected his rights. The Respondent¡¯s decisions not to disclose...

The Tribunal found that most of the Applicant¡¯s claims were time barred and that those which were not time barred were without merit. It was found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON had paid the Applicant¡¯s SPA for the periods when he was entitled to it and that he no longer had any legitimate claims for SPA against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON. Employment Contract: A contract of employment is personal between the employee in each case and the employer. The terms of one¡¯s employment as stipulated in the letter of appointment or contract of employment is binding in personam between staff member and the organization and one cannot seek to...

Placement on SLWFP: The Tribunal held that there was ample evidence that the underlying rationale behind the placement of the Applicant on SLWFP related to misconduct and as such, his suspension cannot be justified under former staff rule 105.2(a)(i) since the Respondent did not have the requisite authority to place him on SLWFP in the context of an investigation. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent¡¯s placement of the Applicant on SLWFP was in actuality a suspension from service pursuant to former staff rule 110.2 and section 6 of ST/AI/371. Due Process: The Tribunal held that the scope...

The Applicant argues that his non-selection for the D2 post constitutes an act of retaliation for having denounced misconduct on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD Officials. Since the two applications relate to the situation faced by the Applicant subsequent to the admitted retaliation, the Judge decided that it was necessary to join the two applications and to render one single Judgment. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proven and the file did not allow concluding that the decision not to select him to the D2 post was based on extraneous factors or illegal. It further found that the SG had...

As the request for management evaluation was not filed within the time limit prescribed by staff rule 11.2(c), the Tribunal rejects the application as irreceivable.