Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The application was withdrawn by the applicant.

Noting that both the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had repeatedly emphasized the need to observe time limits, the Tribunal rejected the application as time-barred, without ruling on the admissibility ratione personae of it.

The Respondent having conceded that his summary dismissal of the Applicant was a flawed decision, the only issue before the Tribunal was the matter of compensation and other entitlements due to the Applicant. The payment of a sum equivalent to two years net base salary to the Applicant in the circumstances was sufficient compensation for non-reinstatement. The Tribunal rejected the relief sought for an international posting in lieu of reinstatement or the payment of the equivalent of twenty-one years salary. The payment of a sum equivalent to six months salary to the Applicant was sufficient...

The application was withdrawn by the applicant.

Likelihood of being offered a new contract: The Applicant did not just lose a chance of being considered for a new position; rather, it was only reasonable to assume that the Applicant would have been offered a new contract, had Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF properly complied with its own rules. Length of a new contract: Had Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF fulfilled its obligations, the Applicant would have been offered a new contract as a two-year fixed-term appointment. Possible renewal: It could not be assumed that, had the Applicant been offered a new contract, then this contract would automatically have been renewed indefinitely¡ªthe...

Applicant¡¯s request for a swap of posts and for priority consideration: The Tribunal¡¯s Statute does not authorize it to issue such orders to the Administration. Applicant¡¯s request for an internal review of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDSS: The Tribunal¡¯s mandate is to enforce the individual rights of applicants; it does not behove the Tribunal to oblige the Administration to remedy problems it may identify in the functioning of the Organization. Applicant¡¯s request for determination of individual responsibilities: Assuming the Applicant intended to rely on article 10.8 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, such article allows the...

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 application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

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...

The Tribunal raises on its own motion the question of the receivability ratione materiae, namely whether the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision. On the merits, it finds that the OIOS decision is lawful. Tribunal¡¯s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion¡ªthat is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties¡ªwhether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass judgment on an application, including whether the contested decision is an...

The Tribunal found that the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision but that the application was time-barred. Force of JAB conclusions and recommendations: The Tribunal is not bound by the conclusions and recommendations of the Joint Appeals Board, which is only a consultative body. Tribunal¡¯s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion¡ªthat is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties¡ªwhether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass...

The Tribunal found this decision unlawful as not grounded on any valid legal basis. It awarded three months¡¯ net base salary for moral damage.

The case was closed after Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was informed that there had been full compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

The case was closed after Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was informed that there had been full compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

The case was closed after Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was informed that there had been full compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the investigation into the management and administrative practices in general or of disciplinary cases is usually a matter within the discretion of the Administration but may still be subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that if a staff member is dissatisfied with the outcome of an administrative decision, they may request judicial review which may result in the affirmation or recission of the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the application not receivable, as the Appellant challenged an administrative decision, claiming non-compliance with the terms of his...

The Respondent contended that the Applicant¡¯s appointment was not renewed because of financial and staffing considerations, namely the ending of temporary funding for the Applicant¡¯s position. The Applicant contended that this reason was not legitimate and that the decision was tainted by discrimination and based on other factors that were not disclosed to him. The Applicant claimed that the Respondent created an expectancy of renewal of his appointment as a result of the promises given to him by his supervisor. He further submitted that his due process rights were violated during an...