Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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.

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.

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 found that in as much as the Applicant¡¯s situation regarding promotion was re-examined by the Administration, not at the Applicant¡¯s request but on the Administration¡¯s initiative, the Applicant could not seriously assert that he was unable to inform the Appointment, Posting and Promotions Board (APPB) of the mistakes contained in his file. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had the right to contest before the Tribunal the decision notified to him on the grounds that the APPB would have founded its non-recommendation for promotion on incorrect facts. Regarding the Applicant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that it was established that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI decided not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment on the grounds of poor performance, while the appraisal performance procedure for the concerned staff member, at least for 2008/2009, had not been regularly completed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, in light of the case file, the decision under review appeared as prima facie illegal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the urgency for the Judge to rule on the Applicant¡¯s request was established since the implementation of the contested decision would result in the Applicant being excluded from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff as of 18 August 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was only when the Applicant learned of the identity of the successful candidate that he could reasonably have apprehended that there were grounds for such a review. Time therefore runs from 2 March 2008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the time for filing the appeal ran from the time when the Applicant discovered the identity of the person which in turn gave rise to his apprehension that he had grounds for an appeal. Accordingly, his application for review was in time and his appeal is receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s allegation that the rescission request to the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) was inadmissible as time-barred. In light of ST/AI/2005/12, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Medical Service had the authority to convoke the Applicant at any moment to undergo a medical examination to verify whether his state of health permitted him to discharge the functions he was assigned to. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant fell ill and was placed on sick leave for an indefinite period by his personal doctor following an incident with his supervisor which occurred on 8 October 2007. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

The ¡°reason to believe¡± must be more than mere speculation or suspicion: it must be reasonable and hence based on facts sufficiently well founded ¨C though of course, not necessarily proved ¨C to rationally incline the mind of the decision maker to the belief. It is clear that the question is one of fact and degree in which the decision maker is bound to act reasonably but which necessarily involves the exercise of judgment. It is inaccurate to refer to such a judgment as the exercise of a discretion. If the USG in this case had in fact decided that there was ¡°reason to believe¡± that the...

Receivability of the decision not to renew the appointment: In this case, the triggering point should have been the moment when the staff member was made aware by the Administration that there was no reasonable chance or possibility of renewal. Thus, it is the date when the applicant was notified of the termination of her contract; therefore, the application is receivable. Articles 13 and 14 of the Rules of Procedure: Since there is an ongoing management evaluation of the decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s appointment, the applicable interim measure to be ordered would be that under article...