±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal reviewed the supporting documents filed by the Applicant and understood that she was facing personal circumstances that affected her ability to review court documents and prepare submissions as a self-represented Applicant. The Tribunal was also mindful of the Applicant¡¯s right of access to the internal system of justice. At the same time, the Tribunal could not continue extending routine filing deadlines and delay the proceedings indefinitely.

The Tribunal considered that the interests of justice, including those of both parties, obliged it to adjudicate the case as expeditiously...

A staff member¡¯s duty to abide by managerial instruction lies at the heart of employment relationships and the Tribunals are expected to accord a measure of deference to managerial authority, including in setting performance standards (see, Applicant 2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1030, para. 34).

The Applicant has not demonstrated any procedural or substantive breach of his rights. In the absence of any evidence that the performance standards applied by ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF are manifestly unfair and irrational, the Tribunal cannot substitute its decision for that of the decision-maker to overturn the contested decision.

Accordin...

It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-335).

The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.

Compensation in lieu is ¡°not related at all to the economic loss suffered¡± (see Nega 2023-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1393,para. 62) and there is no duty to mitigate loss as a precondition for receiving in lieu compensation (see Zachariah 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-764). It is, according to the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, an option that the Respondent can take instead of reinstating the Applicant in the service. Therefore, pecuniary loss or gain is not a relevant factor.

Consistent with the requirement to act fairly, justly and transparently, the Respondent bears the burden to show that the Applicant did not possess the core and functional...

When closely perusing the application, it clearly followed from the facts set out by the Applicant that the only administrative decision under appeal pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal is the ¡°non-renewal of [his] contract beyond 31 December 2023 due to lack of funds¡±. Accordingly, the issue under review in the present case can therefore be defined as the legality of this decision.

It explicitly followed from the contested decision that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was ¡°due to lack of funds¡±. The Appeals Tribunal has in various cases held...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member had no legitimate expectation of renewal of her fixed-term appointment, as there was no evidence that the Administration had made any express promise that would have created such an expectation. On the contrary, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Administration had properly informed all affected staff, including the former staff member, of the last date of the MADAD Project and advertised 15 clerical posts internally, inviting staff to apply for alternative positions. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that these actions should be viewed in light of the continuous efforts...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had been among the staff whose fixed-term appointments were not renewed due to the closure of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID mission.

With regard to his colleague who was laterally reassigned to the Headquarters and consequently remained in service, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the reassignment had been directly related to the undisputed fact that the colleague could not have been repatriated to Afghanistan for safety and security reasons. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that without the lawfulness of the reassignment decision having been placed before it for determination, it was unable to...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed the Appellants' requests for an oral hearing on grounds that an oral hearing would not be expeditious and that in light of comprehensive written submissions nothing would be gained from hearing the Appellants¡¯ counsel in person.

The Appeals Tribunal found that in the absence of an express promise of renewal of the Appellants¡¯ fixed-term appointments, the Appellants did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The statements giving assurances to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS staff members were not made by a ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS official with...

General verbal statements, which the Applicant asserts were made by his Fist Reporting Officer during team meetings, cannot constitute an express promise to renew his TA. More importantly, such verbal statements lacked the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension and the name of the appointee. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that no official commitment was made to the Applicant in writing to substantiate an expectation of renewal of his TA.

The Tribunal found that performance management procedures governed by ST/AI/2010/5 and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member did not meet the burden of showing that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was defective, instead merely arguing that the decision was not fair. On the contrary, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that in not renewing her fixed-term appointment, the Administration acted lawfully and fairly.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that the Administration¡¯s decision was part of a genuine restructuring which involved, among other measures, reprioritizing existing resources through reassignment, redeployment, and reclassification of staff, including the redeployment of the former staff member¡¯s position from...