±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the non-renewal decision unlawful because the Secretary-General did not show that it was motivated by a lack of funds. Although the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed several errors of law, its main finding is not put into doubt by the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Therefore, in this respect, the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal cannot succeed. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's finding that ±¬ÁÏÍø-Habitat silently accepted Mr. El-Awar's condition of reassignment is erroneous. A reassignment is an administrative decision, a unilateral act imposed on the staff member by the Administration. It is not a contract which can be bargained or...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was unable to show any illegality of fact, procedure or law in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment which might have compelled it to decide in his favour. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to report to work on time, regularly, and without break is a basic duty of anyone who is employed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was given a fair hearing before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the reasons for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissing his appeal were valid. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s contract was validly taken and called for no interference. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no evidence to support the Appellant¡¯s allegations that the statements of her witnesses were used in their entirety by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and, even assuming that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had been in breach of its rules of procedure by making those statements, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had not been established that the said breach gave rise to an error in procedure liable to influence the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegation, that the staff member who recruited her gave her assurances liable to create a well-founded expectation of contract renewal, was not justified. Noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP decision to contact the Pakistani Government directly to enquire about its deputation policy was improperly motivated. With regard to the new communication upon which the Appellant wished to rely, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was new evidence, for which leave was required, in order to adduce it before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find any exceptional circumstances existed to require it to consider the new evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in taking into consideration the conditions governing the Appellant¡¯s deputation in order to determine his...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the reason given for the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract was a restructuring and that the Appellant conceded that the restructuring was properly done. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the opinion expressed by the Appellant¡¯s Chief, that his performance deficiencies and shortcomings could justify the non-renewal of his contract, was immaterial. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration provided the Appellant with legitimate reasons for the non-renewal of his appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed the staff member¡¯s appeal seeking reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment with compensation for the actual and moral damage, as well as the reinstatement of her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s letter of appointment was clear and unambiguous that the appointment did not carry an expectation of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct in finding that the Agency¡¯s extension of the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s review of the factual situation by necessity involved consideration of issues beyond the mere fact of the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract and, thus, found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s deliberations on the issue of non-renewal took place in isolation of the facts surrounding the decision. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to account for the negative impact of the non-renewal of his personal and professional life, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the Secretary-General¡¯s exercise of discretion to take action to address the...

The Appellant contested the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that he was afforded full and fair consideration for the position of Chief and argued that he suffered unfair and discriminatory treatment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that if the Administration does not comply with a Tribunal¡¯s order to disclose the reasons for an administrative decision, as such, the Tribunal cannot automatically conclude that the decision was arbitrary, but it is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the refusal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the Administration¡¯s decision must be deemed unlawful, as the Secretary-General refused to comply...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that concern about a high-level manager¡¯s poor performance was not an improper motive or basis for the decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was well within the discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to determine the amount of compensation for moral damages to award a staff member for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the cases cited by the Appellant as examples of higher awards were neither applicable nor persuasive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in awarding moral damages of USD 25,000. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no merit in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issue to be determined was clear from the papers filed in the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, other than repeating his arguments before the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, the Appellant had not detailed the alleged instances which, according to him, resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the claims of errors of fact on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, were unsustainable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err when it found, from the contents of the 2 September 2009 communication to the Appellant...