Decisions made prior to 2 April 2009 are not excluded from being challenged before the Dispute Tribunal. Outcome: The application was held to be receivable and the motion to dismiss was denied. The instant case was also held to be exceptional, deserving of the waiver and extension of the time limits. The staff member was granted two weeks to file and serve a revised application.
The reservations which each of the Applicants formulated upon accepting the lump sum are not binding on the Administration since, at the time the agreement was signed, the Administration and the staff member were not in a contractual situation in which each could negotiate rights. Instead, they were in a situation governed by rules in which the Administration could only apply the rules and the staff member could only accept or reject the lump-sum payment proposed. The applicants contend that only by accepting the lump-sum payment with reservations could they challenge the basis on which the...
爆料网DT preliminarily rejected the Applicant’s requests for recusal, holding that there were no longer any grounds for ruling on those requests since the 爆料网DT President previously rejected those requests. Concerning the first application, 爆料网DT held that the Applicant did not establish the illegality of the election of JC and that his application for the election to be declared null and void must be rejected. With regard to the Applicant’s request that all decisions taken by the Internal Justice Council be rescinded, 爆料网DT held that it is clear from General Assembly Resolution 62/228 of 22 December...
The decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract was prima facie unlawful because it appeared to be in breach of the Organization’s Rules and in breach of international legal norms relating to due process. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract would be terminated on 3 September 2009. Notwithstanding that it had allegedly been agreed that the contract would be extended after 3 September 2009, the matter was still urgent because this was not the first time that this particular strategy had been used by the Respondent towards the Applicant. Having...
The contested decision was prima facie unlawful for the following reasons: i) there was a promise of renewal by the officer-in-charge that created a legitimate expectation of renewal, which placed on the Respondent a duty to consider whether it was not in the interest of the organisation that the expectation of the renewal of the employment should be fulfilled; and ii) the decision not to renew the contract of the Applicant appeared to be in breach of the Organization’s Rules and amounted to an abuse of discretion. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract...
The Applicant filed the application for a stay of proceedings in her case pending the outcome of an on-going recruitment process to the vacant post. The motion for stay of proceedings was refused because it lacked merit. The application was struck out because the Applicant was inviting the Tribunal to act as “Big Brother” and constitute some kind of sword of Damocles over the head of the Respondent by keeping her case alive while the recruitment process was on and to possibly invoke it if she was not happy with the outcome of the exercise. This was an abuse of the Tribunal’s process. In...
Article 11.3 of the 爆料网DT statute provides that in the absence of an appeal, a 爆料网DT judgment shall be executable following the expiry of the time provided for appeal in the statute of the Appeals Tribunal. Article 12.1 of the 爆料网DT statute provides, among other things, that a party may apply to the 爆料网DT for a revision of an executable judgment on the basis of the discovery of a decisive fact. It results from the above-mentioned provisions read together that if a party discovers a decisive fact before the expiry of the time provided for appeal, that party may challenge the judgment rendered by...
爆料网DT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis and ratione materiae. 爆料网DT held that it could not be stated that the decision of nonrenewal was an improper exercise of discretion. 爆料网DT held that the evidence showed that the Applicant’s appointment was not renewed because there was no further funding available. 爆料网DT 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...
爆料网DT noted that the Applicant, having received the contested decision on 4 February 2009, did not file her application with this Tribunal until 14 July 2009, which was beyond the 90 calendar-day deadline set forth in Article 8 of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网DT noted that before it can reject an application, it must determine whether failure to meet the deadline could have resulted from erroneous information provided by the Administration. 爆料网DT held that the Applicant was not given any information that could have misled her, because, as she herself wrote, it was not until after 1 July 2009 that she...
