±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the reason provided by the Administration for the non-renewal was not supported by the facts and that the decision was indeed based on extraneous factors. The decision of the ITC Senior Management Committee to merge several existing programs was never really implemented. A generic P-4 post was advertised in early 2012 under the new program, and funded through budget lines already available when the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment was taken. The available evidence shows that the real motive of the decision was the fact that the Applicant¡¯s supervisor...

The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s argument that this was a case of non-renewal and found that the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term contract was terminated on the grounds of alleged unsatisfactory performance for the period of 2007 to 2010. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the performance evaluation report (¡°PER¡±) for 2010 cannot be lawfully relied upon to justify the finding of unsatisfactory performance as the Applicant had no opportunity of a meaningful rebuttal. Therefore, the termination of the Applicant¡¯s contract on the basis of poor performance was unlawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also found that no proper...

. The Applicant claimed that the reason for the contested decision was not disclosed to her until the management evaluation stage and that the reason given was not supported legally or factually. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF was obliged to provide the Applicant with a reason for the non-renewal of her contract when she requested it. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that according to the performance ratings provided prior to the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract, her performance, as a matter of law, cannot be regarded as unsatisfactory based on secs. 5.2 and 10.2 of CF/AI/2010-001 (Administrative instruction...

He alleged that the non-renewal of his appointment was based on discriminatory grounds, i.e. because of his Kurdish ethnicity, and not for reasons of force majeure, namely due to the occurred earthquake, leading to the subsequent closure of the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR office in Van/Turkey. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision not to renew his appointment was lawful, as the Applicant failed to adduce evidence of any breach of his rights.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant had failed to file it within 90 calendar days of receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation, as required by art. 8.1(d) of the Statute. The Applicant also failed to refer to any exceptional circumstances that would justify the delayed filing of his application and that would warrant a waiver or extension of the applicable time limits.

If the Applicant was labouring under the belief that pursuant to the Agreement, the Respondent was giving her a guarantee of a new post or that she would be laterally transitioned, that belief was misplaced. Nothing in the Agreement or any evidence before the Tribunal suggests that the Respondent was in a position to simply ¡°give¡± the Applicant another position within ±¬ÁÏÍøEP. Positions in the Organizations are not filled or presumed to be filled according to the will of managers but are subject to the Staff Rules and Regulations. The Applicant was not justified in harbouring a legitimate...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision was in violation of an express written promise of renewal for three months by the head of her mission.

Receivability: The Tribunal held that the Applicants had standing pursuant to art. 2.1 of its Statute and found the applications receivable. Merits: Was the restructuring genuine? The Tribunal found that, although the retrenchment exercise resulted in the non-renewal of the Applicants¡¯ appointments, the motivation for it was genuine as it implemented General Assembly resolution 66/264. Was the restructuring implemented through a fair and lawful process? Consultations: The Tribunal found that the Administration did not consult the staff or staff representatives about the posts to be abolished...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Respondent¡¯s argument that no promise had been made was untenable. The evidence clearly indicated that ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS Managers knew the Applicant would rely on the statements they made to her in regards to a one year contract extension. The Respondent repeatedly disregarded its own rules and regulations in the course of completing the Applicant¡¯s performance appraisal and subsequently conducted a flawed rebuttal process which was biased and unfair and violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Promises made created expectancy of renewal - It is untenable for the Administration...

He alleges that the decision was discriminatory, since based on his Kurdish ethnicity, and not based on reasons of force majeure, namely the earthquake that occurred in Van in October/November 2011 and which led to the temporary closure of the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR office in Van. A hearing took place 0n 5 February 2013, during which the Applicant requested the Tribunal to call a witness to provide testimony concerning his claim that the decision was discriminatory. His request to have his witness heard was, however, not granted and Judge Cousin, in Judgment Kacan ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/025 of 19 February 2013, rejected...