Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Performance Evaluation: The career management system is a system that required mutuality and cooperation from both the supervisor and a staff member. The processing of the Applicant¡¯s PAR was unlawful. It was completed in haste and in hindsight once a decision not to renew her contract was made. The finalisation of the PAR without any input from the Applicant was a serious breach of her right due process. The PAR had not been completed either at the time of the contested decision or the expiry of the Applicant¡¯s FTA and the Administration proceeded with its decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract although she had referred her PAR for Rebuttal.

Acts of retaliation/reprisal: An allegation of retaliation can be difficult to evaluate especially when seemingly rational administrative arguments are used to justify seemingly rational administrative decisions. The Applicant¡¯s mid-term assessment was unilaterally prepared by her supervisor after she had raised allegations of misconduct by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR senior officials and criticized the IGO internal procedures. The Administration chose to mischaracterise the Applicant¡¯s allegations as poor performance rather than to properly investigate them or refer them to OIOS.

Implementation of a decision: Whether a decision has a legal consequence or a direct impact on the terms of appointment of a staff member is largely a question of fact.

Costs: The Tribunal may only award costs of it finds that there has been a manifest abuse of proceedings. The Respondent¡¯s failure to make appropriate concessions of procedural breaches at an early stage is a manifest abuse of the proceedings. This failure added to the Applicant¡¯s legal costs.

The Applicant was awarded financial compensation, including moral damages and legal costs.

Accountability referral: the Tribunal found that the evidence in this case revealed one serious matter that must be brought to the attention of the Secretary-General pursuant to art. 10.8 of its Statute for possible action to enforce accountability: the attempt to interfere in the Applicant¡¯s rebuttal process by the Executive Office of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Department of Human Resources Management, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Legal Affairs Unit. However, the Tribunal noted that no individuals were identified who can be held responsible for this.