Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant¡¯s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was not receivable both ratione personae and ratione materiae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision had no bearing on her status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of her former appointment or contract of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was satisfied that there were sound reasons supporting the Secretary-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD¡¯s decision to cancel the job opening, but noted that it would have been desirable to undertake and complete a gender/geographical balance assessment at an early stage of the recruitment process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT disagreed with the Applicant that the impunged decision was an act of discrimination against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the decision constituted permissible and lawful affirmative action on the part of the Organization to reach gender and geographical goals set by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ General Assembly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also...

The Applicant has made it clear in his email dated 23 April 2021 that the objective of his filings is solely to protect his staff rights should the Administration fail to finalize his claim under Appendix D. The Tribunal does not see the need to maintain current legal proceedings considering that the Applicant has the right to file an independent application contesting an administrative decision regarding his Appendix D claim under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Judicial remedy is not warranted, at this stage, in the present case. Moreover, as of the date of this Judgment, the...

The Applicant¡¯s appointment rested with the Human Resources Section and not the DMS, the mere recommendation by the latter of extension of the contract did not constitute a firm commitment for the Organization under the applicable jurisprudence, nor did the extension of his ground pass, which is a mere organizational permission. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of his fixed-term appointment. The Applicant¡¯s post was among those whose unique function was to be abolished in the affected unit and therefore, deemed to be a ¡°dry cut¡±...

Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been ¡°shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member¡± (see Michaud 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant had no authority to demand a performance guarantee from an NGO Coordinator and that the Applicant¡¯s intention was not to keep a performance guarantee, but rather to obtain a bribe from the NGO Coordinator. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was not convinced of the probative value of the alleged handwritten note which the Applicant claimed was evidence of his intention to request a performance guarantee. On the issue of the Applicant returning the alleged performance guarantee, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the real intention of the Applicant and the Senior Programme Assistant was to avoid the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT preliminarily decided not to admit the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Coordinator¡¯s testimony into evidence, holding that it was not required because the case record already contained relevant evidence in relation to the facts in which he had been involved. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the evidence showed that neither the Applicant nor the Senior Programme Officer were involved in the implementation of the project. In fact, a Senior Reintegration Officer had overall responsibility for it as he requested an operational advance and, consequently, was personally responsible for the funds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT denied the Applicant¡¯s motion in which he sought the disclosure of an extensive amount of additional documents, as it was filed after the end of the collection of evidence and after the submissions of closing statements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the contested non-renewal decision was unlawful because the provided reason for it, namely lack of funding, was not based on correct facts. It was therefore not necessary for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to examine whether the decision was tainted by ulterior motives, as also argued by the Applicant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the most appropriate remedy for the Applicant would be rescission...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not contest the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment, and held that the application was admissible as the Applicant properly requested management evaluation of the decision related to her non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the recruitment process was conducted in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡¯s Recruitment and Selection Policy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant was given full consideration in the selection process, and that her experience in the United Nations as well as her status as a staff member of the RCO in Turkey was properly recorded in the corporate panel...