±¬ÁÏÍø

As the Applicants did not respond at all to the Tribunal¡¯s requests, they therefore must be deemed to have abandoned the legal proceedings they instituted.Outcome: Application was dismissed.

The first management evaluation decision dealt with the issue of the promise made to the Applicant and granted him compensation of three months salary in lieu of further performance of his contract of employment. That decision itself as mentioned earlier does not prevent the Applicant from filing an appeal in respect of the same subject matter that is the non renewal of his contract. Whereas Management has considered the express promise to the Applicant and decided that monetary compensation was sufficient remedy, the Tribunal recalls that it found the ¡°circumstances surrounding the non...

Since former Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Tribunal pointed out that the application was time-barred under Staff Rule 111.2 (a).Outcome: Application was dismissed.

The Tribunal limited its review to the time-bar of the statement of appeal to the JAB in Februaiy 2009. Since fonner Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Morsy judgment and the broader definition of "exceptional cases" with reference to art. 8.3 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, art. 7.5 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP had to remain out of consideration. Neither the lack of knowledge of the English language nor ignorance of law could be accepted as "exceptional circumstances".Outcome: Application was dismissed.

A summary judgment was rendered because, as per art. 9 of the RoP, there was no dispute as to the material facts and judgment was restricted to matters of law. As one of the Applicants did not file an application in person (art. 8.1 (b), 3.1 and 2.1 of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute) neither designated a counsel to act on his behalf (art. 12 of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP), his application was deemed as not receivable. Furthermore, considering that an apology is beyond the remedies which may be ordered by the Tribunal in accordance with art. 10.5 of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, the application was declared as out of the Tribunal¡¯s mandate.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis and ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it could not be stated that the decision of nonrenewal was an improper exercise of discretion. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the evidence showed that the Applicant¡¯s appointment was not renewed because there was no further funding available. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that there was no evidence to support the Applicant¡¯s contention that the decision to extend her contract in January 2008 using Joint Integrated Technical Assistance Programme funds, while she was working on other projects, was done in order to prepare the ground...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the contested decision in the present case did not appear to be prima facie unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT accordingly did not further examine whether the matter was urgent and/or whether the implementation of the contested decision would cause irreparable damage. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also held that the decision of non-renewal was not an improper exercise of discretion. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that there was no evidence that the non-renewal...