Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s allegation that the rescission request to the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) was inadmissible as time-barred. In light of ST/AI/2005/12, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Medical Service had the authority to convoke the Applicant at any moment to undergo a medical examination to verify whether his state of health permitted him to discharge the functions he was assigned to. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant fell ill and was placed on sick leave for an indefinite period by his personal doctor following an incident with his supervisor which occurred on 8 October 2007. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that in as much as the Applicant¡¯s situation regarding promotion was re-examined by the Administration, not at the Applicant¡¯s request but on the Administration¡¯s initiative, the Applicant could not seriously assert that he was unable to inform the Appointment, Posting and Promotions Board (APPB) of the mistakes contained in his file. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had the right to contest before the Tribunal the decision notified to him on the grounds that the APPB would have founded its non-recommendation for promotion on incorrect facts. Regarding the Applicant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was only when the Applicant learned of the identity of the successful candidate that he could reasonably have apprehended that there were grounds for such a review. Time therefore runs from 2 March 2008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the time for filing the appeal ran from the time when the Applicant discovered the identity of the person which in turn gave rise to his apprehension that he had grounds for an appeal. Accordingly, his application for review was in time and his appeal is receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered the applicant to show cause why his appeal against dismissal should not be struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant failed to respond. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the order to show cause was properly served on the applicant and that SIU¡¯s investigation produced clear evidence establishing the facts supporting the charges. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that there was no procedural irregularity, improper motive, or abuse of power, and that the sanction of summary dismissal was a fair and proportionate response. Outcome: The application was struck out in its...

The applicant was given the opportunity of providing arguments and submissions which may tend to show that he had an arguable case. He has failed to do so. There was ample evidence before the Secretary-General to support a finding of serious misconduct. The internal disciplinary investigations complied with the principles of natural justice. There were no procedural irregularities in the investigation and the sanction of summarily dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct.

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...

The members of the IJC were informed that the Applicant¡¯s cases had been transferred to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from the Joint Appeals Board and that they may have had an interest to join in as parties in the case, pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure. The information communicated to the members of the IJC could not be construed as amounting to any impropriety, less still a conflict of interest, within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure. The application was rejected because it was merely a repetition of the application dismissed by Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/005.

Unlawfulness: There has to be evidence to establish that, at the very least, it is probable that the non-renewal decision of itself was unlawful. Irreparable harm: Harm is irreparable if it can be shown that suspension of the action is the only way to ensure that the applicant¡¯s rights are observed. Although the applicant has expectation of fair treatment, any breach of due process in this case is capable of being compensated financially or by correction of the performance record. Should he be ultimately vindicated, he can get compensation for any losses arising out of defects in the...

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...

The applicant failed to show that her case met the criteria under art. 2.2 of the Statute and art. 13 of the Rules of Procedure.

Outcome: Application was rejected.

The mandate of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is confined to the review of administrative decisions. Although the definition of this term may be disputed, it is beyond question that administrative decisions must by essence be taken by the Administration. Since the decisions of former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT are judicial decisions, they cannot be contested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The provisions on transitional measures apply to pending Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT cases only. They do not include the power to revise Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgements. Cases closed by judgments of former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT are res iudicata.

According to the Organization¡¯s broad discretion to reassign its employees to different functions, provided that the new position is in line with the grade, qualifications and professional experience, the Applicant could have been redeployed in principle. As legally required prior consultations with staff representatives were not held and - in addition - the agency showed lack of good faith by informing the Applicant only by ¡®all staff e-mail¡¯, procedural flaws vitiated the contested decision. Regardless of its significance, non-compliance with legal provisions specified in art. 2.1 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

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.