Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/156, Gehr Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/156, Gehr Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...

The Tribunal concluded that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment (FTA) was unlawful because he was erroneously subjected to a recruitment and selection process after he had been successfully transitioned from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIS to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS as the sole candidate for the post of State Coordinator in Aweil. The Applicant was awarded compensation of one year¡¯s net base salary. Lateral transfer: The Tribunal noted the absence of important terms in the 19 December 2010 letter regarding the length of the assignment and reabsorption and concluded that the Applicant had, in fact, been laterally...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that MINUSTAH erred when it excluded the Applicant from the comparative review process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that process should have included all staff for all available posts at the Mission after retrenchment, which was not done in this case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached in that she was not reviewed by the comparative review panel against all the remaining posts in the new mission structure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that the Applicant¡¯s contract expired and was not terminated. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to separate the Applicant was lawful since it...

No evidence showed a link between the Applicant having expressed divergent views on a work-related matter and the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. The decision not to extend the fixed-term appointment was based on operational requirements and followed the Security Council¡¯s decision to withdraw MINUJUSTH. The Applicant had no expectation of renewal of her fixed-term appointment. No evidence showed that MINJUSTH made a written promise to extend the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment. There is no legal provision directing the Administration to find placement for staff members at...

The Applicant¡¯s appointment was not extended beyond its expiration due to the liquidation of the Mission. The decision not to extend the appointment was supported by the evidence and therefore lawful. The fact that the Applicant had incurred in personal debt does not generate an obligation on the Administration to find her an alternate post upon the closure of the Mission.

The Tribunal concluded that based on the record before it, there was no dispute that the decision to abolish the post the Applicant was occupying and, consequently, the decision not to extend his appointment originated from the restructuring approved in the 2016/17 budget for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵISFA by the General Assembly. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant failed to substantiate claims of discrimination against him. As such, the contested decision was taken in compliance with the relevant rules and regulations. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant¡¯s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.

The Applicant¡¯s appointment rested with the Human Resources Section and not the DMS, the mere recommendation by the latter of extension of the contract did not constitute a firm commitment for the Organization under the applicable jurisprudence, nor did the extension of his ground pass, which is a mere organizational permission. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of his fixed-term appointment. The Applicant¡¯s post was among those whose unique function was to be abolished in the affected unit and therefore, deemed to be a ¡°dry cut¡±...