Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not raised a prima facie case that the decision was arguably unlawful or that he would suffer irreparable damage from its implementation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the contested decision of 22 December 2010 was superseded by that of 31 March 2011 to allow the Applicant to exercise his right of rebuttal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant was moot and decided to close the case.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the contested decision was superseded by the 31 March 2011 decision to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment for another six months. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was thus rendered moot and decided to close the case.

The Tribunal found that there could not be an absolute and general rule that the failure to give reasons amounts to an unlawful exercise of the discretion not to renew. Nor should there be a rule that reasons should never be given. Having found that the decision was not prima facie illegal, the requirements provided for in Article 13 of the Rules of Procedure to grant suspension of action were not met.Outcome: the application was dismissed.

i. Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found that prima facie unlawfulness had been established because the Applicant identified anomalies in the processes used by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON. ii. Particular urgency: The Tribunal noted that the selection decision had been communicated to the selected candidate by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON before the Applicant filed her application. As the contested decision had been implemented, the element of particular urgency had not been met. iii. Irreparable damage: The Tribunal found that the Applicant established irreparable damage in that there would be harm to her reputation and career...

The impugned decision is grossly, patently, incurably and incontrovertibly unlawful. An order suspending the administrative decision pending management evaluation is bound to work injustice in the circumstances.The Application that gave rise to the proceedings and deliberations in this case clearly was brought under a wrong heading when it was filed as a suspension of action application. The Tribunal, in the present circumstances, must in the interest of justice move this matter to the cause list of applications on the merit and accordingly dispose of it fully and on the merits.Article 36 of...

Whether the decision being contested is the one taken by OHRM to separate the Applicant from service, or the earlier decision taken by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC, or the pending decision of the ABCC, there is currently no case that is pending management evaluation. There is also no substantive application before the Tribunal in relation to which this request for interim relief could be considered. In any event, art. 10.2 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute provides that a suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision may not be granted in cases of termination, which includes separation...

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...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal noted that, in the letter to the; Applicant dated 19 November 2012, the Chief Human Resources and Planning Section (HRPS), informed her that her application of for the FS-5 post was not successful. The Applicant was also informed that a suitable positin had been identified for her, namely, a Claims Assistant at the G-6 level. The Tribunal found that the identification of a G-6 level post for the Applicant who at the time encumbered an FS-4 level post could not be considered a suitable position for the Applicant as required by sections 10.2...