Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was prima facie unlawful because it appeared to be in breach of the Organization¡¯s Rules and in breach of international legal norms relating to due process. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract would be terminated on 3 September 2009. Notwithstanding that it had allegedly been agreed that the contract would be extended after 3 September 2009, the matter was still urgent because this was not the first time that this particular strategy had been used by the Respondent towards the Applicant. Having...

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 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 the application was receivable because the time limit for management evaluation had not yet expired and management evaluation was still pending. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took note of the findings of the JAB Panel, which recommended suspension of action following the Applicant¡¯s request to this end dated 22 June 2009, and of the Deputy Secretary-General¡¯s memorandum by which such suspension was granted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that both the Panel and the Secretary-General came to the conclusion that the questioned decision was prima facie unlawful and that the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, if implemented, would...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that a request for suspension of action can only be granted in cases where all criteria have been satisfied: prima facie unlawfulness, urgency, and irreparable damage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the contested decision in the present case did not appear to be prima facie unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly did not further examine whether the matter was urgent and/or whether the implementation of the contested decision would cause irreparable damage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that the decision of non-renewal was not an improper exercise of discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no evidence that the non-renewal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the procedure to be followed for the given position to be re-titled and re-classified had not been completed by the time the Applicant submitted her request to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that no administrative decision had yet been made by the time the request for suspension of action was submitted to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and considered by same. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore held that the request had to be considered inadmissible, nothing preventing the Applicant from contesting the forthcoming decision.

The Tribunal¡¯s decision to grant a suspension of action on such a decision would not have the effect of rescinding or reversing the contested decision as claimed by the Respondent, but only that of suspending temporarily, from the date of the Tribunal¡¯s decision and until such date as provided for in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT statute, the legal consequences of the contested decision. The Applicant claims that the decision was not taken by the Secretary-General despite the Respondent¡¯s claims to the contrary. The Respondent refused to comply with the Tribunal¡¯s orders to submit a signed confirmation from the...

One of the elements that an application for suspension of action must show is that the contested decision ¡°appears prima facie to be unlawful¡±, i.e. that there is a reasonably arguable case that the contested decision is unlawful. A merely reasonable (hence legitimate in ordinary parlance) expectation of a particular outcome is not the same as a legitimate expectation that gives rise to any legal rights, and will be insufficient to establish reasonably arguable unlawfulness. Outcome: The Judge held that there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for concluding even on a prima facie level that...

In light of the Applicant¡¯s withdrawal of his application for suspension of action and subsequent lack of prosecution of the proceedings, there is no matter for adjudication before the Tribunal. The application is dismissed for want of prosecution, without determination of its merits, and the case is closed.

Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found in Villamoran Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/126, that the mandatory 31-day break in service for staff between their fixed-term and temporary appointments, if not supported by law, is prima facie unlawful. The Respondent was ordered to provide evidence to support the decision but failed to do so. The evidence submitted neglected to show the publication date or the precise method of publication of the revised administrative instruction. The Administration has an obligation to properly announce amendments to Staff rules and regulations for decisions to be proper and made...