Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT preliminarily held that only facts occurred from early 2005 to 7 November 2007 were to be taken into consideration with regard to the allegations of harassment leveled by the Applicant. Consequently, reported actions and decisions dating back to 2004, in particular the non-promotion of the Applicant in 2004, were excluded from the present Judgment. Regarding the remainder of the application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his allegations that he was subjected to harassment by the Organization and that the latter bore responsibility for...

Decisions made prior to 2 April 2009 are not excluded from being challenged before the Dispute Tribunal. Outcome: The application was held to be receivable and the motion to dismiss was denied. The instant case was also held to be exceptional, deserving of the waiver and extension of the time limits. The staff member was granted two weeks to file and serve a revised application.

Motion for extension of time was refused. Abuse of process of the Tribunal.

The Dispute Tribunal may suspend or waive the deadlines for the filing of applications imposed by the Statute and Rules of Procedure, but may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning management evaluation because this is the prerogative of the Secretary-General.The drafters of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal intended that all applications to the Tribunal would be subject to the rules under which this Tribunal operates. Therefore, pursuant to Article 8.3 of the Statute, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the deadlines for the filing of requests for...

The notes taken by the panel contain material that is or may well be relevant to the applicant¡¯s case and therefore they should be provided to the applicant. Outcome: The notes taken by the panel to be provided to the applicant, subject to the applicant making an appropriate confidentiality undertaking.

Article 11.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT statute provides that in the absence of an appeal, a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment shall be executable following the expiry of the time provided for appeal in the statute of the Appeals Tribunal. Article 12.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT statute provides, among other things, that a party may apply to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a revision of an executable judgment on the basis of the discovery of a decisive fact. It results from the above-mentioned provisions read together that if a party discovers a decisive fact before the expiry of the time provided for appeal, that party may challenge the judgment rendered by...

The reservations which each of the Applicants formulated upon accepting the lump sum are not binding on the Administration since, at the time the agreement was signed, the Administration and the staff member were not in a contractual situation in which each could negotiate rights. Instead, they were in a situation governed by rules in which the Administration could only apply the rules and the staff member could only accept or reject the lump-sum payment proposed. The applicants contend that only by accepting the lump-sum payment with reservations could they challenge the basis on which the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis and ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it could not be stated that the decision of nonrenewal was an improper exercise of discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the evidence showed that the Applicant¡¯s appointment was not renewed because there was no further funding available. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no evidence to support the Applicant¡¯s contention that the decision to extend her contract in January 2008 using Joint Integrated Technical Assistance Programme funds, while she was working on other projects, was done in order to prepare the ground...

The contested decision was prima facie unlawful for the following reasons: i) there was a promise of renewal by the officer-in-charge that created a legitimate expectation of renewal, which placed on the Respondent a duty to consider whether it was not in the interest of the organisation that the expectation of the renewal of the employment should be fulfilled; and ii) the decision not to renew the contract of the Applicant appeared to be in breach of the Organization¡¯s Rules and amounted to an abuse of discretion. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was prima facie unlawful because it appeared to be in breach of the Organization¡¯s Rules and in breach of international legal norms relating to due process. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract would be terminated on 3 September 2009. Notwithstanding that it had allegedly been agreed that the contract would be extended after 3 September 2009, the matter was still urgent because this was not the first time that this particular strategy had been used by the Respondent towards the Applicant. Having...