Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

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 Applicant filed the application for a stay of proceedings in her case pending the outcome of an on-going recruitment process to the vacant post. The motion for stay of proceedings was refused because it lacked merit. The application was struck out because the Applicant was inviting the Tribunal to act as ¡°Big Brother¡± and constitute some kind of sword of Damocles over the head of the Respondent by keeping her case alive while the recruitment process was on and to possibly invoke it if she was not happy with the outcome of the exercise. This was an abuse of the Tribunal¡¯s process. In...

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 preliminarily rejected the Applicant¡¯s requests for recusal, holding that there were no longer any grounds for ruling on those requests since the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT President previously rejected those requests. Concerning the first application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant did not establish the illegality of the election of JC and that his application for the election to be declared null and void must be rejected. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s request that all decisions taken by the Internal Justice Council be rescinded, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it is clear from General Assembly Resolution 62/228 of 22 December...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant had until 2 February 2009 to file an appeal before the Joint Appeals Board. However, the Applicant¡¯s appeal was dated 27 February 2009 and was not received by the Joint Appeals Board until 3 March 2009. The Applicant¡¯s Counsel did not present any exceptional circumstance that prevented him from filing an appeal within the time limits prescribed in the Staff Rules then in effect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the request was therefore irreceivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

The Applicant filed a motion for interim measures requesting that the Tribunal order the Ethics Office to deliver recommendations on his case with respect to whistle-blowing retaliation; and to find a prima-facie violation of the Applicant¡¯s due-process rights concerning the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP. The Tribunal rejected the motion to order the Ethics Office to deliver its recommendations and decided that the alleged violation of the Applicant¡¯s due process rights concerning the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract would be addressed during the review of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant, having received the contested decision on 4 February 2009, did not file her application with this Tribunal until 14 July 2009, which was beyond the 90 calendar-day deadline set forth in Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that before it can reject an application, it must determine whether failure to meet the deadline could have resulted from erroneous information provided by the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant was not given any information that could have misled her, because, as she herself wrote, it was not until after 1 July 2009 that she...

A summary judgment was rendered because, as per art. 9 of the RoP, there was no dispute as to the material facts and judgment was restricted to matters of law. As one of the Applicants did not file an application in person (art. 8.1 (b), 3.1 and 2.1 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute) neither designated a counsel to act on his behalf (art. 12 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP), his application was deemed as not receivable. Furthermore, considering that an apology is beyond the remedies which may be ordered by the Tribunal in accordance with art. 10.5 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the application was declared as out of the Tribunal¡¯s mandate.