The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was receivable.
The Applicant specifically submits that the staff rules state that ¡°[c]ontinuity of service shall not be considered broken by periods of special leave¡± and the Respondent may not therefore deny his eligibility on the ground that his six months of special leave without pay resulted in him not having been employed for a continuous period of five years The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinds the contested decision and finds that the Applicant is eligible for consideration for permanent appointment.
Improper motives: The Tribunal held that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract was motivated by improper motives in view of the fact that: (i) the Applicant¡¯s relationship with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Humanitarian Coordinator (HC), under whose leadership the Applicant was working, was hostile; and (ii) the HC and the Applicant¡¯s deputy, who had unsuccessfully competed for the Applicant¡¯s post, had gone to great lengths to undermine him and to tarnish his reputation with OCHA leadership.
Performance: The Tribunal held that while the Applicant may have made mistakes, shown an excessive zeal, or may have...
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 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...
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...
