±¬ÁÏÍø

Legitimate expectation: The Tribunal held that while a legitimate expectation can be created by an express promise on the part of the Organization, given the special nature of fixed-term contracts within the Organization an expectation of contract renewal may also be based on the surrounding circumstances, including the practices of the Organization. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal concluded that since there was a practice of renewing the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, he was entitled to expect its continued renewal unless there was a legitimate reason for not renewing the...

The Tribunal ordered rescission of the administrative decision to separate the Applicant from service. The Tribunal awarded the Applicant compensation for the substantive and procedural irregularities occasioned him by the failure of the Administration to follow its own guidelines, rules and procedures. Ultra vires - It was not within the competence of the Mission Leadership Team of ±¬ÁÏÍøMISS to leave its role of implementing the new mission¡¯s mandate in order to dabble into matters of human resource management and the transitioning and de-transitioning of staff from the old mission to the new...

The Tribunal did not find any exceptional circumstances, and found that the application was not receivable, ratione temporis.

The Applicant alleged that the selection exercise was procedurally flawed and biased against him. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the candidates¡¯ answers on the written tests were marked by an assessor who did not know the identities of the candidates. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant was not prejudiced by the manner in which the test was carried out. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the Applicant¡¯s claims unsubstantiated and dismissed the application.

She alleged that the Administration advised her wrongly to resign from her 100-series fixed-term appointment (FTA) with ±¬ÁÏÍøDP, Kosovo, in 2007, when she was offered a FTA with ±¬ÁÏÍøV, Bonn, and argued that her resignation cannot be taken into account when assessing her eligibility for consideration for conversion, namely the requirement of 5-year continuous service. Following requests for additional information, the Tribunal found that the Administration put the Applicant into an illegal situation when she was first offered a 300-series appointment of limited duration with ±¬ÁÏÍøV, Bonn, while she...

The Tribunal found that since the Applicant failed to request the Administration to open a new TVA, and as such to provoke an administrative decision of refusal, the application was irreceivable in this respect. The Tribunal further found that the decision to select another candidate was procedurally flawed since the Applicant, despite her request, was not provided with the names of the members of the Interview Panel. In view of the case history, there is no doubt that the Applicant would have requested a change of Panel members and a reasonable Administrator would have conceded to her request...

A judgment on receivability is not an executable judgment. It is not a judgment on the merits of the case where all issues have been adjudicated upon. An executable judgment is one in which the court determines on the substantive issues of the case having heard and deliberated on the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties. In so doing, it ends the dispute before the court which heard it. A judgment on receivability is based on a procedural issue. In the present case, the procedural issue had to do with the timeliness of the application and scope of the court¡¯s jurisdiction where the...

Relying on articles 7 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal found that the Application was not receivable because the Applicant had filed it one day late.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the post in question was a New York-based post to be assigned to the Entebbe office ¡°subject to finalisation of arrangements for the initiation of a Regional Procurement Office¡±. This post was filled through a selection exercise that was finalized when the offer of appointment was made to Mr. YK in April 2011. The movement of the selected staff member, along with his post, to Entebbe was not a lateral move or a new recruitment, but rather implementation of the selected staff member¡¯s terms of appointment in line with the vacancy announcement that provided that recruitment...

Decision of a technical body: A rebuttal panel should be considered as a technical body as per the provision of staff rules 11.2(b). Consequently, a decision of a rebuttal panel is not subject to management evaluation as a prerequisite before filing an application before the Tribunal. The preeminent purpose of management evaluation is to reconsider the initial decisions taken by the Administration. Where such reconsideration is delegated to a specialized body, there is no need for further administrative review. Rebuttal panel: The panel¡¯s mandate is fixed for two years and ST/AI/2002/3 did not...