±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s contract was not terminated but, instead, it was not renewed after its date of expiration. As termination indemnity was payable to staff members upon termination of their appointment and not in cases of non-renewal, the Applicant was not entitled to such payment. With respect to the interest on reimbursement for unused annual leave days, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, while that reimbursement amount was held by the Organization pending completion of the Applicant¡¯s separation paperwork, it accrued interest which is payable to the Applicant. With respect to the payment...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant first became aware that something was amiss in the recruitment process on 29 February 2008 when he was told that a ¡°hold had been put on¡± the issuance of his letter of appointment by the SRSG. Subsequently, the Applicant was aware of the decision to appoint another candidate to the position in question in June 2008. Still later, in April 2009, and from the Applicant¡¯s own; submissions, while in New York, he received what he called a ¡°verbal apology¡± (for the way things turned out) from the Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations. The...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the application was receivable. Subject matter of management evaluation request: the grant of an appointment to Dakar and the reassignment to Dakar were deemed to be one and the same issue. Thus, the Applicant had requested management evaluation of the decision to reassign him from Haiti to Dakar.

At no time following the decision of the rebuttal panel did the Applicant seek an informal resolution of her case which could have suspended the applicable time limits in this matter.

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent¡¯s decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment was prima facie unlawful having been motivated by erroneous factors. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had met his burden of proof by establishing that he had an arguable case of unlawfulness. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant¡¯s contract was to expire on 9 November 2012. On irreparable damage, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was approaching the retirement age. The...

The Applicant had been assured of her eligibility, short-listed, interviewed, recommended for the position, and copied on subsequent communications, following which the Administration decided that she was not eligible. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision to disregard part of the Applicant¡¯s work experience because it was obtained prior to her Master¡¯s degree was unlawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also found that the decision to disregard, in its entirety, the Applicant¡¯s experience between February 2004 and April 2006 because it was deemed by OHRM to be equivalent to the G-5 or G-6 level, was unlawful...

The purported termination conveyed in the letter from the ED of ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS dated 11 May 2010 is accordingly rescinded. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant had not misused his ±¬ÁÏÍøLP and ±¬ÁÏÍø ID when he showed it to the person with whom he had entered into a business transaction. Ultra Vires: The Secretary-General or his agents in the instant case blatantly acted outside the scope of his or their authority in carrying a disciplinary process beyond the expiry date of the staff member¡¯s contract. The decision to separate the Applicant in May 2010 was manifestly ultra vires and therefore unlawful. Debt...

The Applicant¡¯s post was one of 45 posts earmarked in November 2007 for abolition by December 2008. It is not contested that the 45 posts for abolition which included the Applicant¡¯s post were extended on GTA funding through June 2011. In the present Application on the merits, the Applicant needs to prove, at least on the balance of probabilities, that the Retention Panel was unfair in its evaluation of him and was discriminatory. Not only did he fail in his earlier suspension of action application to give particulars of the irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism which he alleged...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT stated several hurdles to the receivability of the present application, including with respect to receivability ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae, although the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also found that on the papers filed some of these issues would ordinarily warrant further examination had the application not been manifestly inadmissible. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the application was manifestly inadmissible because the Applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement of submitting a request for management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing an application with...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to provide reasons why the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment was lawful. The Tribunal therefore, concluded that based on the available evidence, the contested decision was motivated by countervailing circumstances and was thus prima facie unlawful. With regard to urgency, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had acted prudently by filing her application in a timely manner. Consequently, the Tribunal held that in the circumstances, the requirement for urgency had been satisfied by the...