Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Request for review: The Administration should not be excessively formalistic and demand that for a request for review to be considered as such, it must necessarily be addressed to the Secretary-General. However, such a request must be formulated in sufficiently clear terms to be regarded by its addressee as a formal request for review¡ªthat is, as the first compulsory step initiating the appeals procedure provided for by former staff rule 111.2(a)¡ªwhich s/he must then forward to the Secretary-General. Exceptional circumstances/duty to inform staff members: There is no provision requiring the...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy of renewal; whether the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post was a valid exercise of the Organization¡¯s discretion; and whether the Applicant was fully and fairly considered for the newly created posts following a restructuring within the Organization. Outcome: The application failed and was dismissed.

Review of the motivations behind the contested decision: Circumstances intervening after the contested decision was taken may not be considered as showing the motives put forward by the Administration to be false. Even if it was proved that an evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance was conducted after his separation, this is not pertinent in examining the decision not to renew his contract, inasmuch as the motive provided therefor was not unsatisfactory performance. Scope of review by the Tribunal: It is not for the Tribunal to determine, when the Administration decides to close one of its...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT drew an adverse inference from the Respondent¡¯s failure to disclose the reasons to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and declared that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and therefore unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Administration breached its obligation to disclose the reasons for the contested decision to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered (i) compensation in the amount equivalent to six months¡¯ net base salary and entitlements at the P-5 grade, VI step, with retroactive interest, for actual economic loss suffered, and (ii) USD8,000 as compensation for emotional distress. Applicable...

While finding that there had been a procedural flaw in the FOPA evaluation, inasmuch as the Applicant had been denied a rebuttal, the Tribunal considered that there was not causal effect between this flaw and the non-renewal decision, noting that the contested decision refers only to the third and last appraisal, which was made in accordance with the applicable rules. Resolution 59/296 and reappointment of 300 series staff members under 100 series: The said resolution authorises the Secretary-General to reappoint staff members holding an appointment under the 300 series of former Staff Rules...

The preliminary issue at stake was whether the Tribunal had competence ratione personae to examine this application. In this regard, the Tribunal found that, under the relevant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP rules, persons recruited under Service Contract are not staff members. It therefore considered that it did not have competence to adjudicate this case. It also found that the facts had clearly established that the Applicant had actually amicably settled the issue of the non renewal of his contract and received USD 9593 as compensation. The Tribunal therefore considered that the Applicant, who was a party to this...

Reason for non-renewal of fixed-term appointment: The Organization enjoys broad discretion regarding restructuring measures, including the abolishment of posts. Non-renewal following the expiration of a fixed-term appointment can be based on the lawful abolition of a post due to reorganization activities.

Prima facie case: When the Respondent fails to respond to a submission of the Applicant and to the relevant evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal is left with the inference that the submission is correct.Urgency: The matter was imminent as the Applicant¡¯s contract ended in eight days from the date of the Judgment. The urgency was due to the Respondent not properly ensuring that a management evaluation would be ready before the scheduled day of separation.Irreparable harm: The harm that the Applicant contended he and his family will suffer from the non-renewal of his contract, and...

The Tribunal concluded that there was cogent evidence that extraneous factors were taken into account in the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had sufficiently discharged his burden of proof. He showed that the actions of the Respondent¡¯s agents were unfair, improperly motivated, and wholly arbitrary.