Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

STL staff members are not United Nations staff members and thus do not have access to the Tribunal.

Non-renewal The Chief Administrative Officer¡¯s decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was arbitrarily taken. Downsizing In cases of downsizing, there is generally some established criteria put in place to ensure accountability and transparency of the process. In the present case, there was no evidence of such criteria and the Tribunal found that the Applicant was deliberately reassigned to another unit in order to make it possible for the downsizing axe to fall on him. Expectancy of renewal Applicant had a legitimate expectancy of renewal of contract considering that the Personnel...

The Applicant submitted that she has a legitimate expectation of renewal and that the decision not to renew her contract was motivated by extraneous considerations. The Respondent submitted that the decision was taken as a result of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIT¡¯s downsizing in view of its eventual closure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the requirement of urgency was satisfied. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness was also satisfied as the reason provided by the Respondent in support of the contested decision appeared to be unsupported by the facts and the documents in this case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found...

Outcome: Judgment for the Applicant. The parties were ordered to attempt to resolve the issue of appropriate relief, failing which it would be considered by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the requirement to take a break in service was unlawful and did not reflect the true facts as no actual break in service or separation took place. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was no legal requirement for the Applicant to be placed on appointment of limited duration between 5 and 30 June 2009, and the decision to give her an appointment of limited duration was manifestly unreasonable and therefore unlawful. The...

Effect of reversal of decision on compensation: Because the contested decision was reversed by the Administration does not necessarily mean that the applicant is not entitled to claim compensation for the damage s/he may have suffered as a result of the unlawful decision. In a case where the Administration reversed the contested decision at the management evaluation stage, if an applicant can prove that s/he still sustains or sustained an injury resulting from the unlawful decision despite the rescission of the same, s/he has grounds for claiming compensation.Outcome:

Outcome: The application was rejected. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made the following findings: The preliminary fact-finding investigation was initiated properly, but was flawed, because the Applicant was not re-interviewed or given the opportunity to answer the allegations of sexual harassment in writing after the full scope of allegations became known to the investigation panel. However, these flaws did not vitiate the contested decision as they were cured in the process that followed. The findings of the fact-finding investigation report and the accompanying documents justified the decision to initiate formal...

Outcome: The application was rejected. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the implementation of the contested decision would cause her irreparable damage.

Starting date of the 90-day time limit to file an application: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which prevails in case of contradiction with the Staff Rules as it is superior in the hierarchy of norms, prescribes that an application before the Tribunal must be filed within 90 days following receipt of the Administration¡¯s response to the request for management evaluation or, if the Administration has not replied to such request, following the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation. If the Administration replies after the response period for the management evaluation but before...

Administrative decision: The essential element of an appeal is that there is a contested and appealable ¡°administrative decision¡±. ¡°Conduct¡± is not an administrative decision subject to appeal pursuant to article 8.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Preparatory decision: Preparatory decisions do not affect the scope or extent of an applicant¡¯s rights and are therefore not subject to appeal. Management evaluation: A request for management evaluation is a necessary step in the appeal process. While the findings of a management evaluation do not form an independent administrative decision subject to...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, having considered the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that everything pointed to a suspect reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Respondent did not give a clear reason for non-renewal, even after the Applicant specifically requested for it. The Tribunal, thus concluded that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was prima facie unlawful. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant¡¯s contract was to expire on 29 February 2012. The Applicant had...