Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The suspension of action was granted and the adverse report ordered to be removed from the applicant¡¯s official status file pending the outcome of the substantive proceeding.

The Applicant sought a further extension of time on 16 October 2009 to file her substantive application after the Tribunal had previously granted her 21 days to do so. This extension expired on 16 October 2009. The Tribunal noted that: the Applicant¡¯s Counsel had applied to withdraw from representing the Applicant for want of instructions; the request for extension was filed on the date of expiry of the previous Order, and moved the Tribunal for a further extension of 1 year; the Applicant alluded to ¡°direct negotiations¡± being underway; ¡°with the Respondent in this matter¡±, but failed to...

Two types of interim measures - with different functions, preconditions, restrictions and scope - have to be clearly distinguished. Art. 13 RoP has to be applied exclusively during the pendency of the management evaluation, whereas art. 14 RoP is appropriate only during judicial review in terms of art. 2 and 8 Statute; in short: it is either 13 or 14 ¨C never both. Orders based on art. 13 RoP become ineffective with the end of management evaluation. The present application had to be considered under art. 13 RoP since the contested decision of 12 October 2009 was released under new conditions...

Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal prescribe the form of the parties¡¯ submissions filed in accordance with an order of the Tribunal. In the absence of such provisions, the matter falls under article 36 of the Rules of Procedures. The respondent has not specified anything in the form of the applicant¡¯s submission that substantively breaches his obligations under the directions made in the Tribunal¡¯s order¡ªthe use of the word ¡°grounds¡± in a subheading instead of ¡°issues¡± is not a significant difference and generally it is of no importance which template the applicant...

Admissibility: The parameters of what is admissible before this court is provided for in Article 18 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. In relevant part, the Article states that the Tribunal shall determine the admissibility of any evidence; and that it may exclude evidence which it considers irrelevant, frivolous or lacking in probative value. Workplan/EPAS: It is the responsibility of the first reporting officer to set out the work plan with the Applicant; to conduct the mid-point review and the final appraisal; and to provide supervision on the overall work of the Applicant during the course...

The Judges of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were not appointed by the IJC whose mandate was to identify suitable candidates for recommendation to the General Assembly. The Judges were elected by the General Assembly on 2 March 2009 and that process involved the participation of nearly 190 Member States of the United Nations. This guaranteed their independence. The Applicant¡¯s averment of lack of impartiality was based on the fact that the Judges of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were selected by the IJC. The Applicant made general accusations of potential bias but did not give any precision on how this bias on the...

The first management evaluation decision dealt with the issue of the promise made to the Applicant and granted him compensation of three months salary in lieu of further performance of his contract of employment. That decision itself as mentioned earlier does not prevent the Applicant from filing an appeal in respect of the same subject matter that is the non renewal of his contract. Whereas Management has considered the express promise to the Applicant and decided that monetary compensation was sufficient remedy, the Tribunal recalls that it found the ¡°circumstances surrounding the non...

The Applicant did not actively or diligently pursue his case because: he failed to give instructions to his Counsel in respect to his challenge against the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment; he had been informed about the Status Conference by his Counsel and had failed to make an appearance or to contact the Tribunal to give reasons for his absence; his Counsel had advised that as far as she was concerned, the substantive matter in the application had been resolved; and from the documents tendered by the Respondent, the Tribunal was convinced that the substantive matter in the...

Respondent¡¯s Counsel filed a motion seeking an extension of the time limit to file the Respondent¡¯s reply on several grounds, including exigencies of service. The Respondent was enjoined to submit a proper application requesting that he should be allowed to take part in the proceedings. The determination of whether he was going to be authorized to file a reply was going to be taken in the light of the Respondent¡¯s motion.

The application was not receivable under article 13 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure because at the time the application was filed, there was no management evaluation pending. It was only on 21 October 2009 that the Tribunal received a copy of the request for management evaluation of the decision of 5 October 2009. The application was not receivable under article 14 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure because the administrative decision dated 5 October 2009 to fill the post related to an appointment and could not be the subject of interim relief in view of the exception contained in article 14...