Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the decision to reassign the Applicant was an unlawful exercise or the Administration¡¯s discretion because, although the decision was based on her alleged poor performance, the Applicant¡¯s performance had never been evaluated in accordance with the established procedures. The subsequent decision not to renew her contract was flawed for the same reason. Whilst the official reason given was that the Applicant did not accept the post offered or apply for another one, the Tribunal found that the non-renewal decision was motivated by the Applicant¡¯s supervisors¡¯ assessment...

The Tribunal finds that none of the applicable provisions prevented the renewal of fixed-term appointments for a period of less than a year. It further finds that the alignment policy was properly issued and rejects the Applicant¡¯s allegations of improper motives and discrimination. Terminology: renewal/extension: The wording of staff rule 4.12 and 4.13 shows an undifferentiated use of the terms ¡°renewal¡± and ¡°extension¡±. Delegation of authority: A delegation of power should not be guessed at or presumed. Organizational measure: A policy which consists, for a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Secretariat office away from...

The ends of justice are not served but its processes stultified by requiring that an Applicant who had obtained judgment in his/her favour should seek management evaluation for enforcement or execution of the said judgment. An Applicant who refused to accept a cheque made out to her/him in time in fulfilment of a judgment sum cannot turn around to seek payment of interest on the said judgment sum on the grounds of delay. Having found that the monies awarded to the Applicant have been duly paid, the Tribunal rejects the Application in its entirety.

Prima facie unlawfulness Having reviewed the Applicant¡¯s performance evaluations, the Tribunal had doubts as to whether the Applicant¡¯s direct supervisors were indeed consulted before the lieutenants finalized and gave to the Applicant the performance evaluation forms on 9 June 2011. Absent an explanation from the Respondent on this particular point, these doubts had a direct impact on the lawfulness of the contested decision. If indeed the Administration did not follow its accepted and reasonable practice, the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment due to his poor performance...

The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the overall test for a suspension of action with respect to that decision. With respect to the decision to require her to take a break in service prior to her placement on a temporary appointment, the Tribunal found that the three requirements of art. 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute were satisfied. The Tribunal found that, for staff on fixed-term appointments who are being reappointed under temporary appointments following the expiration of their fixed-term appointments, there is no requirement, in law, to take a break in service...

The Tribunal found that the initial imposition of the reprimand was justified based on the Applicant¡¯s own admitted supervisory failings. However, the Tribunal found that the withdrawal and subsequent reinstatement of reprimand were improper, as was the decision to transfer the Applicant from his post. The Tribunal directed the parties to confer on the issue of compensation.

Management evaluation: Claims against decisions that have not been the subject of a request for management evaluation are not receivable before the Tribunal. An applicant may not seek any rulings or relief in relation to these decisions. The events surrounding them may be part of the factual matrix of the application but they are peripheral at best. Project document: There is no mandatory requirement in the rules or any Administrative Instructions for a project document to be finalised prior to the responsible staff member taking up the project post. Authority for lateral transfers under ST/AI...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that it had not received any application or correspondence from the Applicant after the outcome of his management evaluation request was received. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT closed the case for lack of prosecution.

The Tribunal rejected the application as time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the established time limit. Authority of the Tribunal to waive the deadlines for management evaluation: The Appeals Tribunal held in several judgments that pursuant to article 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal has no authority to waive the deadline for management evaluation, including where exceptional circumstances may have prevented the staff member from complying with the deadline. Authority of the Secretary-General to waive the...

When the Administration takes a decision which confirms an initial decision, the time limit to contest the decision starts to run from the date of the initial decision. In the case at hand, while the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 2 November 2009, he only requested management evaluation of this decision on 31 March 2010. He thus failed to comply with the established time limit to request management evaluation. When a staff member wishes to contest a decision which, in his view, is unlawful because of the incompetence of the body which took the decision, he/she should...