Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

e was working as Project Manager on an extra-budgetary project, funded exclusively by one member state, and his FTA was limited to his post and department. The decision was based on the discontinuation of the project funding by the Donor. The initial decision had been notified to the Applicant on 13 November 2012, and he requested timely management evaluation thereof. However, upon misleading advice from the MEU, he subsequently submitted a new request for management evaluation against the second, confirmative decision not to extend his appointment beyond 31 May 2013. Thereafter, upon receipt...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant should have been given a one-year extension in Entebbe so that he would have been entitled to the benefits and entitlements that ordinarily accompany such a contract. Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that there was an administrative decision in that the Applicant was challenging a continuum of events - the repeated short-term renewal of his appointment stemming from the decision of the Government of Sudan to oust him from its territory. The Tribunal held that this was a decision of ¡°individual application¡± with ¡°direct legal consequences¡± to the...

The decision not to renew his contract was not an administrative decision ¡°stem[ming] from [this] performance appraisal¡±. The Tribunal holds that the Applicant had no right of appeal against the 2011-2012 e-PAS. That claim is therefore not receivable. Finally, in his claim relating to this performance evaluation the Applicant also challenges the MEU decision that the issue of the Second Reporting Officer¡¯s comments in the Applicant¡¯s e-PAS was time barred. This part of his claim is not receivable as MEU decisions are not reviewable by this Tribunal.It is not within the powers of the Tribunal...

The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was unlawful in light of extraneous factors and the Respondent¡¯s failure to adhere to the rules on performance.

Performance appraisal: The Tribunal noted that even before the Applicant¡¯s individual performance work plan had been approved by his first reporting officer; his second reporting officer was making efforts to terminate his contract. The Tribunal held that it was unreasonable and inappropriate for the Applicant¡¯s performance to be measured against outputs and performance indicators that had neither been defined nor approved by his...

Finality of disputes: The desirability of finality of disputes in proceedings requires that a party should be able to raise a valid defence of res judicata, which provides that a matter between the same persons, involving the same cause of action, may not be adjudicated twice. Res judicata: Once a matter has been determined, parties should not be able to re-litigate the same issue. An issue, broadly speaking, is a matter of fact or question of law in a dispute between two or more parties which a court is called upon to decide and pronounce itself on in its judgment. The object of the res...

Legitimate expectation ¨C The Country Office¡¯s Core Management Group meeting of 29 February 2012 decided that all international staff, including the Applicant, would be extended for one year and the Applicant knew of the decision. This Tribunal finds that the decision taken at a regular and proper Country Office Core Management Group meeting to extend the contract of a staff member, which decision is embodied in open recorded minutes and accessible to staff members, carries far greater weight than any ¡®express promise¡¯ that can be made to the said staff member about extending his contract. The...

In reviewing a decision not to renew an appointment, the role of the Dispute Tribunal is to determine whether the discretion not to renew was validly exercised. Where justification is given by the Respondent for the exercise of its discretion, that justification must be borne out by the facts. Both Parties have told the Tribunal that the Applicant took his grievances to the Retention Committee, which Committee then reviewed the Applicant¡¯s claim and found that the Retention Panel (which the Applicant chaired) had properly carried out the exercise it was charged with. The Tribunal is also...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the five cases are not receivable due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, including with regard to the filing of his management evaluation requests and the deadlines for the filing of an application with the Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that in the cases concerning separation (Cases No. 011 and 028), the Applicant failed to file an application with the Tribunal within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of expiration of time for a response to his management evaluation request. Pursuant to Neault 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345, MEU¡¯s belated...

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...