Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On 19 October 2011, the Tribunal issued Order No. 129 (NBI/2011) suspending the implementation of the contested decision until 10 November 2011 allowing the Tribunal to allow the filing of the Respondent¡¯s Reply, the hearing held on 3 November 2011 and the determination of the matter. The Applicant was communicated the response from MEU on 27 October 2011 as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s response. The Applicant filed his case on the merits, registered in the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s records as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2011/070 and simultaneously filed under article 14 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable on the basis that: (1) the decision of 28 April 2011 was not an appealable administrative decision; (2) the Tribunal was not competent to examine the legality of the subsequent decision on the Applicant¡¯s eligibility for consideration for conversion because she did not request management evaluation of this decision; and (3) even assuming that the decision of 28 April 2011 was an administrative decision subject to appeal, it was merely a confirmative decision and the Applicant did not contest it within the mandatory time limits as the initial...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

The Applicant also contested the adequacy of compensation paid to her for having been placed in a hostile work environment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration was obliged, at the expiration of the three years, to make a decision to either separate the Applicant or to grant her a permanent appointment. The Administration¡¯s reliance on former staff rule 112.2(b) (on exceptions to staff rules) to further extend her probationary contract was improper as the procedural requirements of that staff rule were not met as the Applicant did not agree to the extension. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the...

From the pleadings of the Applicant, it is clear that at the time of the contested decision he was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. At the time the cause of action arose, the Applicant would probably have been entitled to pursue any claim he might have had against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA before the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal. Since the cause of action arose in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, the element of ratione materiae of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not satisfied because the Applicant should have filed his application against the Commissioner General as the Chief Executive Officer of...

The Tribunal concludes that the decision appears prima facie to be unlawful. The instant case meets the requirement of urgency. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant¡¯s assessment of the potential irreparable harm the implementation of the break in service would cause, particularly in light of the visa implications and his children¡¯s educational needs. The Tribunal orders suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision requiring the Applicant to take a mandatory break in service after the expiration of his fixed-term contract and prior to a...

Having considered that the application on the merits is irreceivable because the relevant response period for the management evaluation has not expired, the Tribunal rejects the application for suspension of action insofar as it is submitted pursuant to article 14 of the Rules of Procedure. It however considers that the contested decision appears prima facie unlawful, that its implementation would cause irreparable damage and that the case is of particular urgency, and it consequently orders that the contested decision be suspended during the pendency of the management evaluation, pursuant to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable ratione termporis, considering that, for the purpose of former staff rule 111.2(a), the Applicant was duly notified of his non-selection by the email of 5 June 2009, and that subsequent communications were merely confirmative. Notification of non-selection decision: Former staff rule 111.2(a) did not require that a decision must be communicated in any specific manner, except that it must be in writing. Confirmative decisions: A decision which merely confirms a previous one may not be appealed and it does not reopen the time limit for formal...