±¬ÁÏÍø

Grounds for non-renewal: No provision requires the Administration to give the reasons for a non-renewal decision. However, when a staff member contests the non-renewal of his or her contract before the Tribunal, the Organization must provide the reasons for this decision and the staff member has the right to contest the legality of the same.Discretionary power and scope of judicial review: The Administration has discretion to organize its services and thus to finance or not a programme. It is not for the Tribunal to assess the correctness of this kind of decisions.Burden of proof of extraneous...

Due process: The evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance for the 2008/2009 reporting cycle was not carried out in accordance with the established procedures and materially discredits the Respondent¡¯s case. ±¬ÁÏÍøON had an obligation to defer the non-renewal decision until the rebuttal process had been completed but failed to do so. This was a violation of the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Bad faith: The negative relationship between the Applicant¡¯s former FRO and SRO was contributory to the non- renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Applicant¡¯s SRO demonstrated ill-motive and unethical...

Reasons for non-renewal: A staff member has a right to ask the administration to provide for reasons of non-renewal of his/her contract; if he/she does not ask, then he/she cannot claim not to have been given reasons for the decision and seek to infer negative inference. Fraught working relationship: If a staff member¡¯s work relationship with his/her superiors has deteriorated to the extent that there is no possibility of salvaging such a relationship, it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion not to renew such a contract.

Staff rule 12/3(b) ¨C exception to staff rules: The Tribunal held that under the unique circumstances of this case, that is, the requests from MINURSO recognizing the Applicant¡¯s suitability for the post and the Mission¡¯s dire operational needs, for the Respondent to have properly complied with staff rule 12.3(b), the Applicant¡¯s existing educational qualifications along with his professional qualifications and language skills should have been considered regardless of whether or not they were equivalent to a high school diploma.

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.

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...

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...

e was working as Project Manager on an extra-budgetary project, funded exclusively by one member state, and his FTA was limited to his post and department. The decision was based on the discontinuation of the project funding by the Donor. The initial decision had been notified to the Applicant on 13 November 2012, and he requested timely management evaluation thereof. However, upon misleading advice from the MEU, he subsequently submitted a new request for management evaluation against the second, confirmative decision not to extend his appointment beyond 31 May 2013. Thereafter, upon receipt...

The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was unlawful in light of extraneous factors and the Respondent¡¯s failure to adhere to the rules on performance.

Performance appraisal: The Tribunal noted that even before the Applicant¡¯s individual performance work plan had been approved by his first reporting officer; his second reporting officer was making efforts to terminate his contract. The Tribunal held that it was unreasonable and inappropriate for the Applicant¡¯s performance to be measured against outputs and performance indicators that had neither been defined nor approved by his...

Receivability ratione personae: The Tribunal is not competent to hear applications filed by a (former) individual contractor, who was not a staff member, a former staff member or a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member; such an application is not receivable, ratione personae.Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has timely requested management evaluation. Failure to file a timely request for management evaluation, when required, makes the...