±¬ÁÏÍø

On 31 December 2010 the Tribunal granted suspension of action pending management evaluation, pursuant to Order No. 338 (NY/2010). ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it was evident that the decision not to renew the Applicant was influenced by at least some improper considerations that, as a result, it was satisfied of the prima facie unlawfulness of the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also held that the situation held particular urgency. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further held that, given the criticisms made of the Applicant¡¯s performance, it was reasonable to conclude that if the contested decision was not suspended, irreparable harm to the Applicant...

The Tribunal took note of the fact that the management evaluation was completed on 29 September 2011, thus rendering moot the application for suspension of action filed on 28 September 2011. The application for suspension of action was thus rejected.

The Tribunal found that the decision to reassign the Applicant was an unlawful exercise or the Administration¡¯s discretion because, although the decision was based on her alleged poor performance, the Applicant¡¯s performance had never been evaluated in accordance with the established procedures. The subsequent decision not to renew her contract was flawed for the same reason. Whilst the official reason given was that the Applicant did not accept the post offered or apply for another one, the Tribunal found that the non-renewal decision was motivated by the Applicant¡¯s supervisors¡¯ assessment...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal finds that none of the applicable provisions prevented the renewal of fixed-term appointments for a period of less than a year. It further finds that the alignment policy was properly issued and rejects the Applicant¡¯s allegations of improper motives and discrimination. Terminology: renewal/extension: The wording of staff rule 4.12 and 4.13 shows an undifferentiated use of the terms ¡°renewal¡± and ¡°extension¡±. Delegation of authority: A delegation of power should not be guessed at or presumed. Organizational measure: A policy which consists, for a ±¬ÁÏÍø Secretariat office away from...

An application for a suspension of action is in the nature of an injunction, the purpose of which is to maintain the status quo between parties until the order lapses. Article 10 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute states in no uncertain terms that there is no appeal against such an order. The Tribunal stated that the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (¡°±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡±) had opened the door to an appeal against a Suspension of Action (¡°SOA¡±) decision by stating that the prohibition to an SOA appeal against a decision was an exception. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT meant thereby that it would be left at the discretion of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT whether an appeal...

The Tribunal found: that the Applicant had established a case of prima facie unlawfulness; that the element of urgency was met and the harm suffered to the; Applicant¡¯s reputation and career prospects if the decision was implemented could not be adequately compensated by monetary damages.

Considering that the Respondent¡¯s allegation that the Applicant¡¯s contract was not renewed for unsatisfactory performance during the period 2009-2010, the Tribunal noted that the rating ¡°Partially meets performance expectations¡± had been considered by the Rebuttal Panel as unfair and changed to ¡°Fully meets performance expectations¡±. In the light of this finding the Tribunal took the view that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract on the ground of unsatisfactory performance for the year 20092010 was prima facie unlawful.

Prima facie unlawfulness Having reviewed the Applicant¡¯s performance evaluations, the Tribunal had doubts as to whether the Applicant¡¯s direct supervisors were indeed consulted before the lieutenants finalized and gave to the Applicant the performance evaluation forms on 9 June 2011. Absent an explanation from the Respondent on this particular point, these doubts had a direct impact on the lawfulness of the contested decision. If indeed the Administration did not follow its accepted and reasonable practice, the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment due to his poor performance...