Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s contract was taken at the Mission level, without the delegated authority required by ST/AI/234 and was therefore unlawful. The post facto approval of the decision by the ASG/OHRM does not cure the unlawfulness. The Secretary-General¡¯s action of entering into a contract of employment with the Applicant for the reason only of securing termination indemnities for the Applicant does not appear to be supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rules or any known principles of an employment contract. The termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment as a result of...

The decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s contract was taken at the Mission level, without the delegated authority required by ST/AI/234 and was therefore unlawful. The post facto approval of the decision by the ASG/OHRM does not cure the unlawfulness.The Secretary-General¡¯s action of entering into a contract of employment with the Applicant for the reason only of securing termination indemnities for the Applicant does not appear to be supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rules or any known principles of an employment contract.The termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment as a result of...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.

The Respondent appeared to have a good reason for cancelling the Applicant¡¯s leave. That having been said, however, the manner in which the Applicant was informed of that decision could have been done in a much better way. Considering the fact that the Applicant¡¯s supervisor had only three days earlier, on 9 August 2011, approved his leave, his one-line directive cancelling the Applicant¡¯s leave was not only callous and dismissive but most insensitive. This managerial shortcoming does not, by itself, render the decision prima facie unlawful.Although some harm is caused to the Applicant in...

An application for a suspension of action is in the nature of an injunction, the purpose of which is to maintain the status quo between parties until the order lapses. Article 10 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute states in no uncertain terms that there is no appeal against such an order. The Tribunal stated that the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (¡°Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡±) had opened the door to an appeal against a Suspension of Action (¡°SOA¡±) decision by stating that the prohibition to an SOA appeal against a decision was an exception. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT meant thereby that it would be left at the discretion of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT whether an appeal...

The Tribunal recalled that the burden of proof lay on the Applicant and there was nothing on record to show that the contested decision was made on the ground of improper motives against the Applicant. On the contrary, it found that OCHA had acted in good faith.

Under art. 16(3) of the ICTR Statute, the Registrar of the ICTR is an Assistant Secretary-General. In his position as head of administration, he has the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Secretary-General in relation to the administration and operations of the ICTR. It was the Tribunal¡¯s finding that the Applicant had addressed his request for an administrative review to the ICTR Registrar, who was the person with the power to either review it on behalf of the Secretary-General or to forward it to the appropriate officer, within the applicable time limits. The Applicant had in...

The Tribunal found: that the Applicant had established a case of prima facie unlawfulness; that the element of urgency was met and the harm suffered to the; Applicant¡¯s reputation and career prospects if the decision was implemented could not be adequately compensated by monetary damages.

Considering that the Respondent¡¯s allegation that the Applicant¡¯s contract was not renewed for unsatisfactory performance during the period 2009-2010, the Tribunal noted that the rating ¡°Partially meets performance expectations¡± had been considered by the Rebuttal Panel as unfair and changed to ¡°Fully meets performance expectations¡±. In the light of this finding the Tribunal took the view that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract on the ground of unsatisfactory performance for the year 20092010 was prima facie unlawful.