Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

In this judgment, on one hand, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the Organization and on the other, in favour of the Applicant. For the Organization - the Tribunal found that non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment was properly based on efforts by the Organization to streamline its practices in line with the funding situation it faced. For the Applicant - the Tribunal held that the Respondent¡¯s repeated renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment and penultimate renewal without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service gave the Applicant a legitimate expectation of renewal.

For courts such as the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to be effective in the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, it is imperative that their decisions, however unpalatable they appear to a losing party, are obeyed and complied with, pending any judicial avenues for a remedy if the situation so warrants. The Tribunal holds that although the Statute is silent in as far as contempt provisions are concerned, the power to adjudicate on contempt is inherent in the jurisdiction afforded to the Tribunal by the Statute. The function of the Tribunal necessarily requires that its orders would be obeyed and not...

He alleged that the non-renewal of his appointment was based on discriminatory grounds, i.e. because of his Kurdish ethnicity, and not for reasons of force majeure, namely due to the occurred earthquake, leading to the subsequent closure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR office in Van/Turkey. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision not to renew his appointment was lawful, as the Applicant failed to adduce evidence of any breach of his rights.

The Applicant had argued that the written reprimand was a veiled disciplinary measure and as such there was no need to request a management evaluation. The Tribunal does not agree as it is for the Tribunal to make a determination as to whether the sanction was a veiled disciplinary measure or not. In view of the preceding, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Applicant¡¯s claims contesting the managerial action of a written reprimand are not receivable as they were never submitted to a management evaluation as required under art. 8(1)(c) of the Statute of the Tribunal. As stipulated at para. 5...

As the request for management evaluation was not filed within the time limit prescribed by staff rule 11.2(c), the Tribunal rejects the application as irreceivable.

Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...

The Applicant considers that the disclosure requirements did not apply to him. The Respondent failed to establish that the Applicant was required to file a financial disclosure statement for 2006. The Tribunal rescinds the Applicant¡¯s written reprimand. Any record of it is to be removed from the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File.