Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Assessment of prima facie unlawfulness: In the course of suspension of action proceedings sufficient proof of the facts must be presented in view of the strict time limits governing the suspension of action procedure.

Particular urgency: The requirement of particular urgency will not be satisfied if the urgency was created or caused by the applicant.

Renewal: Although staff members do not have an automatic right to renewal, they have a right to a fair consideration for renewal and for a decision based on proper reasons.Renewal, non-renewal, and limitations under art. 10.2 of the Statute: Staff rule 9.6(b) provides that ¡°[s]eparation as a result of ¡­ expiration of appointment ¡­ shall not be regarded as a termination within the meaning of the Staff Rules¡±. It is clear that non-renewal decisions are not covered by art. 10.2 of the Statute as they are not a form of termination.Selection of S-1 and S-2 level staff: There appear to be no rules...

The Applicant contends that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was based on irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism and that it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of ST/AI/2010/5, however, he failed to give particulars of the irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism which he alleged made the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract unlawful. The Applicant has failed to satisfy the first requirement of a suspension of action application, which is to show the prima facie unlawfulness of the contested decision.

Administrative decisions: What an administrative decision is or is not depends on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision has been made and the consequences of the decision, which dispels any notion that administrative decisions can be placed in any kind of legal strait jacket. Performance evaluation: Notwithstanding the bar to rebutting successful performance ratings in section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5, when a contested administrative decision is alleged to be in violation of the legal issuances of the Organization, it is actionable before the Tribunal in so far...

Decision of a technical body: A rebuttal panel should be considered as a technical body as per the provision of staff rules 11.2(b). Consequently, a decision of a rebuttal panel is not subject to management evaluation as a prerequisite before filing an application before the Tribunal. The preeminent purpose of management evaluation is to reconsider the initial decisions taken by the Administration. Where such reconsideration is delegated to a specialized body, there is no need for further administrative review. Rebuttal panel: The panel¡¯s mandate is fixed for two years and ST/AI/2002/3 did not...

Improper motives: Whilst it is permissible for the drafters of a job opening to deviate from previously established evaluation criteria where circumstances demand it, the deviation must not be actuated by bad faith or improper motives. The Tribunal concluded that the deviation from the established criteria in this case with respect to the subject Job Opening No. 21952 was informed by the desire of the incumbent of the post with the active support of the Hiring Manager to ensure that the recruitment process in respect of the Job Opening was aborted and she was retained in service beyond the...

The Tribunal found that the Administration violated the rights of the Applicant by not including the PAD cycle year 2009 when making the termination decision in July 2010. The Tribunal ordered the rescission of the contested decision and compensation for material damage equivalent to the loss of salary until her early retirement date on 1 May 2011. When terminating a contract for unsatisfactory service, the PAD reports to be taken into consideration must be the ones immediately preceding the non-renewal decision, so the PAD cycle years 2007, 2008, and 2009 for a termination decision made in...

The decision not to renew his contract was not an administrative decision ¡°stem[ming] from [this] performance appraisal¡±. The Tribunal holds that the Applicant had no right of appeal against the 2011-2012 e-PAS. That claim is therefore not receivable. Finally, in his claim relating to this performance evaluation the Applicant also challenges the MEU decision that the issue of the Second Reporting Officer¡¯s comments in the Applicant¡¯s e-PAS was time barred. This part of his claim is not receivable as MEU decisions are not reviewable by this Tribunal.It is not within the powers of the Tribunal...

rocedurally flawed because the ASG/OCSS failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the HCC Note and to comment on any perceived concerns regarding his performance. It was also unclear from the written decisions what specific conclusions the ASG/OCSS had reached about the Applicant¡¯s responsibility for the issues raised in the HCC Note. In addition, the Tribunal was not convinced that the contested decisions would have been justified notwithstanding the breaches of due process and procedure.