±¬ÁÏÍø

This Application is not receivable and is additionally frivolous and vexatious.

The Tribunal will not order the Applicant¡¯s reinstatement as were the original harm repaired, the Applicant¡¯s appointment would already have ended. While the evidence before the Tribunal suggested that extensions of secondments beyond the five-year limit were possible under ±¬ÁÏÍøDP policy, the Tribunal was not convinced that it was probable in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the renewal would have been limited to the five-year restriction and compensation was warranted for that period, less the Applicant¡¯s actual income. Account is taken of the context of the contractual breach i.e...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant did not challenge the non-renewal of her contract in a timely manner and also did not rebut her final e-PAS rating as partially meeting expectations, which rating must be accepted by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT as final. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant was aware, during her employment, of the criticisms concerning her performance and that it would have been reasonable for her to conclude that performance-related factors may have been considered by the Administration in deciding not to renew her contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that under Costa 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-036 it does not have the power to waive or...

As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of fact in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that similar acts require similar rules, the decision that modifies the original provision governing the promotion procedure in ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR must be taken through the same procedure followed to adopt the original provision. While the Tribunal can only examine the legality of a decision which has been subject of a request...

In the present judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, in light of the circumstances of this case, the three months¡¯ net base salary paid to the Applicant for the lack of due process on the recommendation of the JAB report was insufficient. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the procedural unfairness to be so grave that it warranted additional compensation in the amount of USD15,000 for the breach of the Applicant¡¯s procedural rights. With respect to compensation for actual economic loss, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Respondent shall compensate the Applicant for the actual economic loss incurred by her and that the actual economic loss...

The Secretary-General¡¯s decision to allow the applicants to resubmit their cases to the CAC within 90 days was reasonable and fair. The CAC is the legitimate and appropriate body to hear the applicants¡¯ request for a review of a reclassification decision. In view of the JAB¡¯s report, the lack of information provided during the period in question and the respondent¡¯s silence in explaining the delays in the period from 2000-04, the Tribunal finds that compensation for the excessive delay in responding to the original request for reclassification is warranted, as is compensation for the breach of...

The Tribunal sought to find whether there were any exceptional circumstances warranting a waiver of the receivability requirements. In the light of the jurisprudence of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT reaffirmed that ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± are those circumstances that are outside the control of the applicant. In the present matter, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had totally failed to establish that he was hampered by exceptional circumstances to pursue his case with due diligence. The Tribunal found that the matter was time-barred.

The main legal issue in this case is whether there was a duly constituted contract between the parties. The Respondent made the bare assertion that the communication dated 21 September 2007 mistakenly referred to the cancellation of his appointment, whereas it was a withdrawal of the offer. Therefore, according to the Respondent no contract was created, the Applicant was not a staff member, and his application is not receivable. The Applicant submitted that there was a duly constituted contract between the parties. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the offer of appointment accepted by the Applicant and the...

The applicant did not have a legitimate expectancy of renewal. No express promise by the Administration could be found. Had there been one, the letters of appointment signed by the applicant explicitly state that fixed-term appointments do not carry any expectancy of renewal. No promise could override the clear words of the letters of appointment signed subsequently. It cannot be stated that the non-renewal decision was based on improper motives or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion. The Organization was not bound to give any justification for not extending the applicant¡¯s fixed-term...

As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of fact in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that similar acts require similar rules, the decision that modifies the original provision governing the promotion procedure in ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR must be taken through the same procedure followed to adopt the original provision. The lack of transparency alleged by the applicant is a general argument which, to be retained, must...