Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT preliminarily rejected the Applicant¡¯s requests for recusal, holding that there were no longer any grounds for ruling on those requests since the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT President previously rejected those requests. Concerning the first application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant did not establish the illegality of the election of JC and that his application for the election to be declared null and void must be rejected. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s request that all decisions taken by the Internal Justice Council be rescinded, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it is clear from General Assembly Resolution 62/228 of 22 December...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant, having received the contested decision on 4 February 2009, did not file her application with this Tribunal until 14 July 2009, which was beyond the 90 calendar-day deadline set forth in Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that before it can reject an application, it must determine whether failure to meet the deadline could have resulted from erroneous information provided by the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant was not given any information that could have misled her, because, as she herself wrote, it was not until after 1 July 2009 that she...

A summary judgment was rendered because, as per art. 9 of the RoP, there was no dispute as to the material facts and judgment was restricted to matters of law. As one of the Applicants did not file an application in person (art. 8.1 (b), 3.1 and 2.1 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute) neither designated a counsel to act on his behalf (art. 12 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP), his application was deemed as not receivable. Furthermore, considering that an apology is beyond the remedies which may be ordered by the Tribunal in accordance with art. 10.5 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the application was declared as out of the Tribunal¡¯s mandate.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that it was established that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI decided not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment on the grounds of poor performance, while the appraisal performance procedure for the concerned staff member, at least for 2008/2009, had not been regularly completed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, in light of the case file, the decision under review appeared as prima facie illegal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the urgency for the Judge to rule on the Applicant¡¯s request was established since the implementation of the contested decision would result in the Applicant being excluded from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff as of 18 August 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s allegation that the rescission request to the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) was inadmissible as time-barred. In light of ST/AI/2005/12, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Medical Service had the authority to convoke the Applicant at any moment to undergo a medical examination to verify whether his state of health permitted him to discharge the functions he was assigned to. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant fell ill and was placed on sick leave for an indefinite period by his personal doctor following an incident with his supervisor which occurred on 8 October 2007. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the procedure to be followed for the given position to be re-titled and re-classified had not been completed by the time the Applicant submitted her request to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that no administrative decision had yet been made by the time the request for suspension of action was submitted to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and considered by same. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore held that the request had to be considered inadmissible, nothing preventing the Applicant from contesting the forthcoming decision.

Receivability of the decision not to renew the appointment: In this case, the triggering point should have been the moment when the staff member was made aware by the Administration that there was no reasonable chance or possibility of renewal. Thus, it is the date when the applicant was notified of the termination of her contract; therefore, the application is receivable. Articles 13 and 14 of the Rules of Procedure: Since there is an ongoing management evaluation of the decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s appointment, the applicable interim measure to be ordered would be that under article...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that a request for suspension of action can only be granted in cases where all criteria have been satisfied: prima facie unlawfulness, urgency, and irreparable damage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the contested decision in the present case did not appear to be prima facie unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly did not further examine whether the matter was urgent and/or whether the implementation of the contested decision would cause irreparable damage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that the decision of non-renewal was not an improper exercise of discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no evidence that the non-renewal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was receivable because the time limit for management evaluation had not yet expired and management evaluation was still pending. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took note of the findings of the JAB Panel, which recommended suspension of action following the Applicant¡¯s request to this end dated 22 June 2009, and of the Deputy Secretary-General¡¯s memorandum by which such suspension was granted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that both the Panel and the Secretary-General came to the conclusion that the questioned decision was prima facie unlawful and that the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, if implemented, would...