Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The applicant was entitled to be immediately informed or placed in the same position as he would have been had he been immediately informed. The failure to give timely notice, given the history of the case, gave rise to the legitimate expectation that the contract would be renewed. Outcome: Held that the applicant had no legitimate expectation of renewal of his contract and that decision not to renew was based on proper grounds and was not affected by irrelevant considerations. Held also that the applicant was entitled to be informed of the decision that he was regarded by the Organization as...

The application is prima facie not receivable before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Dispute Tribunal as it was filed, without leave, on 2 February 2010 and relates to a decision taken on 10 January 2008. The application was not pending before the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal when it ceased operations on 31 December 2009 and accordingly, this is not a case transferred from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal. No extension or waiver is granted and the application is rejected in its entirety.

Once appeal is withdrawn there is no longer any matter for adjudication before the Tribunal.

None.

The applicant had a real and substantial chance of appointment of around 50 percent and that the appointment would have lasted until his 2010 retirement date. USD2,000 nominal compensation awarded for loss of the chance to work in New York.

Outcome: The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The Tribunal finds that the circumstances appertaining at the time of recruitment of the Applicant created a legal expectancy of renewal. The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was arrived at in breach of her rights to due process. The Applicant is entitled to compensation for losses incurred as a direct consequence of the non-renewal of the contract subject to the duty to mitigate.

The process leading up to the termination decision. A human resources office, such as OHR, has the obligation to ensure that its administrative decisions are taken on a proper factual basis and, if necessary, make the necessary enquiries to ensure this to protect the affected staff member¡¯s rights. OHR failed to inform the Applicant and the relevant medical advisors about the consequences of her being declared disabled by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC and about her possible alternatives. OHR also failed to delay the examination of the Applicant¡¯s case by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC. All these circumstances breached the Applicant¡¯s rights...

Receivability: The letter of November 2007 was sent before the contested decisions had been made. The Applicant thus cannot be appealing against those decisions. The letter of 4 March 2008 was sent by the Applicant within the required two-month period but it was not addressed to the Secretary-General. If this letter were properly filed with the Assistant Administrator of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP, in accordance with the practice of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP to conduct its own administrative review, it remains that this letter could not trigger an administrative review as the Applicant did not state in clear terms that she was...

Receivability: The Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review was made outside the mandatory time limit. In accordance with article 8.3 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning requests for administrative review or management evaluation. There is no basis in the former Staff Rules for finding that time to request an administrative review should only be calculated from the end of the involvement of the Ombudsperson. The terms of reference of the Joint Ombudsperson are inconsistent with the Staff Rules. The...