±¬ÁÏÍø

Identification of contested decisions: An application must properly single out each and every administrative decision that an applicant wishes to contest in a clear and concise manner, failing which the application could be deemed irreceivable. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has an inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision impugned by a party and identify what is in fact being contested.Promises binding on the Administration: Where a staff member claims that he or she had a legitimate expectation arising from a promise made by the Administration, such expectation must...

Receivability ratione temporis: Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are legal imperatives and the Tribunal is bound to examine the issue of receivability. Receivability ratione materiae: By virtue of article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute only administrative decisions, allegedly in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, are appealable. In the instant case, the rejection by the Administration of the Applicant¡¯s request to benefit from an enhanced separation package, despite the fact that he had not opted for it in due time, constituted an...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to provide reasons why the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment was lawful. The Tribunal therefore, concluded that based on the available evidence, the contested decision was motivated by countervailing circumstances and was thus prima facie unlawful. With regard to urgency, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had acted prudently by filing her application in a timely manner. Consequently, the Tribunal held that in the circumstances, the requirement for urgency had been satisfied by the...

The Applicant¡¯s post was one of 45 posts earmarked in November 2007 for abolition by December 2008. It is not contested that the 45 posts for abolition which included the Applicant¡¯s post were extended on GTA funding through June 2011. In the present Application on the merits, the Applicant needs to prove, at least on the balance of probabilities, that the Retention Panel was unfair in its evaluation of him and was discriminatory. Not only did he fail in his earlier suspension of action application to give particulars of the irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism which he alleged...

The purported termination conveyed in the letter from the ED of ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS dated 11 May 2010 is accordingly rescinded. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant had not misused his ±¬ÁÏÍøLP and ±¬ÁÏÍø ID when he showed it to the person with whom he had entered into a business transaction. Ultra Vires: The Secretary-General or his agents in the instant case blatantly acted outside the scope of his or their authority in carrying a disciplinary process beyond the expiry date of the staff member¡¯s contract. The decision to separate the Applicant in May 2010 was manifestly ultra vires and therefore unlawful. Debt...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent¡¯s decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment was prima facie unlawful having been motivated by erroneous factors. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had met his burden of proof by establishing that he had an arguable case of unlawfulness. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant¡¯s contract was to expire on 9 November 2012. On irreparable damage, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was approaching the retirement age. The...

The application is not receivable as it was not submitted to the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) within the sixty calendar days time limit in staff rule 11.2(c). The Tribunal notes that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation was limited to requesting the payment of certain benefits as a result of the non-renewal of her contract and did not, as per the submission to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, contest the actual non-renewal of her contract.The Applicant did not contest the findings of the OAI report before the MEU prior to submitting them to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. These claims are therefore not properly before...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had been grossly negligent in that a duty-conscious and vigilant Logistics Assistant in the Applicant¡¯s position ought to have reasonably foreseen that the documents in possession of Mr Weah were sufficient to enable him to misappropriate the containers. The sanction was fair and proportionate. The Application therefore failed. Negligence test: Three elements which must be established to prove gross negligence; namely, (1) a failure in the form of an act or omission to exercise the requisite standard of care; (2) the standard of care required is that which a...

The Tribunal held that the Administration did not have sufficient evidence of Mr. Koutang¡¯s level of engagement in outside activities to justify a finding that he had engaged in an outside occupation or employment. Thus, there were no reasonable grounds to sustain a finding of conflict of interest. While Mr. Koutang had installed a private router in his office there was no breach of security and no willful misconduct. Mr. Koutang had no ulterior motive or malicious intent in installing the router. It was at most an error of judgment with no proven adverse effects on the Country Office. The...

Receivability ratione materiae of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: In order for the Tribunal to act upon an application for suspension of action submitted pursuant to article 2.2 of its Statute, an ¡°administrative decision¡± must be at issue. According to the Tribunal¡¯s case law, a challengeable administrative decision is a decision taken by the Administration which carries direct legal consequences in respect of the applicant¡¯s rights under the terms of his or her appointment or contract of employment.